Preview
Name \wmmwwkoofiéumflzg JUN 20 2018
lADeressQ ogox 7OOl/UVW’2$ ’nm.‘ Em (02
*qufiaocArq gig z-
Fm
’
'
Lg? ED
[’4me 230$ 'UN 2 0 2018
_
OURT' or AUFORNIA
SUPERlcOoRugTY FFRE’SNO
0F
IN THE :SULAW [Of COURT OF CALIFORNlA
IN AND FOR THE
m7 ”3 CE CG 02 37
13mg, LAAmoN/m) , )
CASE NO: E10 Ohggngg
'
)
Petitioner.’ )
PETITION FOR WRlT
)
OF MANDATE/
)
PROHIBITION
)
[Code of Civil
Mag;
'
E
)
Procedure, sectiOn
COURT OF THE STATE )
1085, 1086, et. seq]
7)
0F CAEFQRMA, COUNW QF‘FfQ mz‘
'
_
,
)
)
Respondent, )
.
,
_
)
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
‘
)
)
Real Party in Interest. )
’
)
)
1. Petitioner is the defendant in a criminal action entitled'People of the
_20
21
'
State of Califfornia -vs \Mfil = mmm—
Case Number Elgjzlabflfifi ,now pending before the
22
respondent court; .s
'2-3 \
.24
2- Respdndem i8 the
EMOL Court of the :state of California for
the C'oumy of (?(PCSWO‘
25.
8. The real Party in interest is.the People of The State o? California-;'
/
4. Respondent has a Clear. present and ministerial duty to abide by and
adhere to the exercise of sound discretion governed by legal rules to do justice
aCcording to the law in conducting hearings receiving evidence and to issue
rulings consistent with laws governing the subject matter of this petition;
5. I
Respondent has failed and/or refused to exercise sound discretion
as follows:
(a) on or about WWWIM/q 1W“); petitioner
I
did present before
respo‘ndentamotionentitied
IO si
"
Pahhww mm Sim a-Femi mix asp «Imfir wa s
(d
amid “iv {Aim ‘HMri’ Wag ii/iriIJolflJ NHL?) mahl/XPIWL/
H “
(b) on orabout Vfi‘fi’w“Ifol} II 0 r
'12
.espondent did deny pet iIioner’s
i
mozion despite facts brought before court and
13 the the state of "existing iaw, both
l
l
14 .i
Qa‘ which supports petitioner’s request;
15: 6. Petitioner is a person. beneficially interested in the proceeding, and
I
1.6
petitibner. respondent, and real party
I i
in interest are the parties who wiii be affected
\J
-4
by this proceeding;
'i
1s
7. Petitioner has no plain. speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordina’ry
19 ,
course of iaw other than by this petition in that there is no other adequate
20
procedure to require respondent to use
21 discretion governed by legal rules to do
22 justice according to the mandate of la-W-and the constitution. Or to otherwise entitle .
23'
petitioner to enjoy the benefits sought through this petition;
24
8. Petitioner has performed all conditions precedent to the tiling oi this
25.
26
petitio‘n by having
I
first exhausted all available remedies, including lodging an
.
objection to the mling in reSpondent court.
9. At all times mentioned respondent has
herein, been able to adhere
and follow the' mandate of law y'vhich governs the within subject matter:
Notwithstanding such ability and despite petitioner’s d.ema'nd(s“) as stated herein.
respondent Continues to fail and/or refuses to order relief petitioner seeks.
10. On_\{1>W'WT:’/]q A.?fl9a [co'mpl'aint]
[information] [indictment] was
filed inthe respondent‘coun charging petitioner with vtdlation(s§ of Penal Code §§
-
fl-SSII ’55! 45$]! Petitioner;
.
?EY/ZL/Li’ .
entered a plea of n‘ot guilty to the
I
charges.
11. Petitioner is particularty aggrieved by the [denial 01 his motion}
igranténg of real party's motion] that unless
..
in restrained end prohibited by order
N
.
of this Court, therespondent cdurt threatens to, intend to, and will entertain, pass
_.*_
upon; hear. try and decide motions, proceedings, and trial in reliance on erroneous
..~?.
I
16 ..
prior ruling.
17
12. No other petition for writ of mandate/prohibition
i has been made by
18‘
or on behalf of this petitioner relating to this matter.
WHEREFORE, petitioner prays that:
1. A peremptory writ of prohibition be issued, iestraining the respondent
court, its officers and agent, and ail persons acting by and through its orders, from
taking any fu'rther steps or proceedings, including trial in this case.
'A
2. peremptory writ d‘f
mandate by issued directing andcornpelling the
respondent court to vacate erroneous
its ruling and to issue a new and different
order, or that
3. An alternative writ mandate b'e-
O_f issued directing the respondent
‘
cdun show 451m
to cause before this Court, at a specified mead \
place, why the I
€
.
relief prayed for should not be granted,
4. This Court such
order other or further relief as may be éppmpriate
in the interest of justice.
'
DATED.-
LE £3 Respectfully subminéd,
1O
11
12
13
14 Petitioner pro
in per
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24.
25
26
l am the petitioner in this
W
matter. l have read the allegations contained in
‘
the petition and know them' to be true by 'rny own personal knowledge.
1O
EXECUTED THIS Eda \5 DAY OF Aumfi
11
12
£3 UNDER PENALTY or: PERJURY IN AMSCMLWO
CALIFORNIA.
14
15
16
18
19
7
‘
20 DECLARANT
21' W Wu Pea
22
23
‘24-
25
26
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
0F PETITION FOR. WRIT OFIMANDAfE/PROHIBITION
I
A. The He‘spondent Cp’urt’s Reasoning
In ruling on the mo‘tion at‘issuevhere, the r'espondént court specifically
rejeded the authority cited by petitibner. The respofidentléourt stafed: _L{A__
defies 44m (5“st 0P 8BR OM Feokm
Leewe m r. muse c H047;
B. The Ruling on the Motion
Was f.
1O
in Excess of the Respondent Court's .
11 I
Jurisdiction, Thus Extraordinary Relief
_.n
h.)
should Be Granted Here-
13
14.
lt is we“ sewed thai a cohrtac'is in excess of itsjurisdiction where itrefuses
to.
follow controlling auiheriiy and ez‘zirazofdinary relief can be given in such a
16 situation. (E.g., Lister v. Superior Court C1979) 98 Cal.App.3d 64, 71-72; P_qulg
17
v. MUrlicipal Court (Gelardi) {1978) 84 C‘ai.Ape.3d 692, 698; fleggle v. Sugerior
18‘
C_ourt (Lozano) (1977) 69 Cal. App. 3d“47, 61. ) This is such a case.
19
case
W
in the at bar. the court specificaliy rejected-the. reasoning of higher
4
21
authority in that itruled pah‘ho “fir; OWMA UWA Pflflr>§
22 imw/S \nwe heart WWW M ’b/Hx Owhdhf
23
24
WWI“ 0er Gaurmtleézfl V371 W WWW UVL tJ—c/
tEJ—a/I‘G5 Com§1NLt 0V1 I
25
25;
Discretion must be "guided and controlled by fixed legal principles, . . .
exercised In conformity with the spirit of the law and in a manner to serVe and not
to impede or defeat the ends of substantial justice "
(People v. Warner (1978) 20
Cal. 3d. 578 683.) In a legal sense, discretion is abused wheneverin the exercise
thereof the coun exce \ds the bounds of reason, all oI'
the Circumstances before
it being considered. LStaie Farm Inc. v. Superior Court (1956) 47 Cal. 2d 428
432.) Here, the ruiing the
by respondent court was beyon'd reason and was
therefore an abuse of discretion in excess of the respondent court's jurisdiction.
As such, a writ shouid issue. For these reasons. petitioner respectfully requests
that this Court grant the relief requested.
DATED [£6
_
(a
[S Hespectfuliysubmitted,
19
20
M'@
Petitionet irI pm 'r’r
21
22
23‘
24
25
126
Preview
Name \wmmwwkoofiéumflzg JUN 20 2018 lADeressQ ogox 7OOl/UVW’2$ ’nm.‘ Em (02 *qufiaocArq gig z- Fm ’ ' Lg? ED [’4me 230$ 'UN 2 0 2018 _ OURT' or AUFORNIA SUPERlcOoRugTY FFRE’SNO 0F IN THE :SULAW [Of COURT OF CALIFORNlA IN AND FOR THE m7 ”3 CE CG 02 37 13mg, LAAmoN/m) , ) CASE NO: E10 Ohggngg ' ) Petitioner.’ ) PETITION FOR WRlT ) OF MANDATE/ ) PROHIBITION ) [Code of Civil Mag; ' E ) Procedure, sectiOn COURT OF THE STATE ) 1085, 1086, et. seq] 7) 0F CAEFQRMA, COUNW QF‘FfQ mz‘ ' _ , ) ) Respondent, ) . , _ ) PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. ‘ ) ) Real Party in Interest. ) ’ ) ) 1. Petitioner is the defendant in a criminal action entitled'People of the _20 21 ' State of Califfornia -vs \Mfil = mmm— Case Number Elgjzlabflfifi ,now pending before the 22 respondent court; .s '2-3 \ .24 2- Respdndem i8 the EMOL Court of the :state of California for the C'oumy of (?(PCSWO‘ 25. 8. The real Party in interest is.the People of The State o? California-;' / 4. Respondent has a Clear. present and ministerial duty to abide by and adhere to the exercise of sound discretion governed by legal rules to do justice aCcording to the law in conducting hearings receiving evidence and to issue rulings consistent with laws governing the subject matter of this petition; 5. I Respondent has failed and/or refused to exercise sound discretion as follows: (a) on or about WWWIM/q 1W“); petitioner I did present before respo‘ndentamotionentitied IO si " Pahhww mm Sim a-Femi mix asp «Imfir wa s (d amid “iv {Aim ‘HMri’ Wag ii/iriIJolflJ NHL?) mahl/XPIWL/ H “ (b) on orabout Vfi‘fi’w“Ifol} II 0 r '12 .espondent did deny pet iIioner’s i mozion despite facts brought before court and 13 the the state of "existing iaw, both l l 14 .i Qa‘ which supports petitioner’s request; 15: 6. Petitioner is a person. beneficially interested in the proceeding, and I 1.6 petitibner. respondent, and real party I i in interest are the parties who wiii be affected \J -4 by this proceeding; 'i 1s 7. Petitioner has no plain. speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordina’ry 19 , course of iaw other than by this petition in that there is no other adequate 20 procedure to require respondent to use 21 discretion governed by legal rules to do 22 justice according to the mandate of la-W-and the constitution. Or to otherwise entitle . 23' petitioner to enjoy the benefits sought through this petition; 24 8. Petitioner has performed all conditions precedent to the tiling oi this 25. 26 petitio‘n by having I first exhausted all available remedies, including lodging an . objection to the mling in reSpondent court. 9. At all times mentioned respondent has herein, been able to adhere and follow the' mandate of law y'vhich governs the within subject matter: Notwithstanding such ability and despite petitioner’s d.ema'nd(s“) as stated herein. respondent Continues to fail and/or refuses to order relief petitioner seeks. 10. On_\{1>W'WT:’/]q A.?fl9a [co'mpl'aint] [information] [indictment] was filed inthe respondent‘coun charging petitioner with vtdlation(s§ of Penal Code §§ - fl-SSII ’55! 45$]! Petitioner; . ?EY/ZL/Li’ . entered a plea of n‘ot guilty to the I charges. 11. Petitioner is particularty aggrieved by the [denial 01 his motion} igranténg of real party's motion] that unless .. in restrained end prohibited by order N . of this Court, therespondent cdurt threatens to, intend to, and will entertain, pass _.*_ upon; hear. try and decide motions, proceedings, and trial in reliance on erroneous ..~?. I 16 .. prior ruling. 17 12. No other petition for writ of mandate/prohibition i has been made by 18‘ or on behalf of this petitioner relating to this matter. WHEREFORE, petitioner prays that: 1. A peremptory writ of prohibition be issued, iestraining the respondent court, its officers and agent, and ail persons acting by and through its orders, from taking any fu'rther steps or proceedings, including trial in this case. 'A 2. peremptory writ d‘f mandate by issued directing andcornpelling the respondent court to vacate erroneous its ruling and to issue a new and different order, or that 3. An alternative writ mandate b'e- O_f issued directing the respondent ‘ cdun show 451m to cause before this Court, at a specified mead \ place, why the I € . relief prayed for should not be granted, 4. This Court such order other or further relief as may be éppmpriate in the interest of justice. ' DATED.- LE £3 Respectfully subminéd, 1O 11 12 13 14 Petitioner pro in per 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24. 25 26 l am the petitioner in this W matter. l have read the allegations contained in ‘ the petition and know them' to be true by 'rny own personal knowledge. 1O EXECUTED THIS Eda \5 DAY OF Aumfi 11 12 £3 UNDER PENALTY or: PERJURY IN AMSCMLWO CALIFORNIA. 14 15 16 18 19 7 ‘ 20 DECLARANT 21' W Wu Pea 22 23 ‘24- 25 26 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT 0F PETITION FOR. WRIT OFIMANDAfE/PROHIBITION I A. The He‘spondent Cp’urt’s Reasoning In ruling on the mo‘tion at‘issuevhere, the r'espondént court specifically rejeded the authority cited by petitibner. The respofidentléourt stafed: _L{A__ defies 44m (5“st 0P 8BR OM Feokm Leewe m r. muse c H047; B. The Ruling on the Motion Was f. 1O in Excess of the Respondent Court's . 11 I Jurisdiction, Thus Extraordinary Relief _.n h.) should Be Granted Here- 13 14. lt is we“ sewed thai a cohrtac'is in excess of itsjurisdiction where itrefuses to. follow controlling auiheriiy and ez‘zirazofdinary relief can be given in such a 16 situation. (E.g., Lister v. Superior Court C1979) 98 Cal.App.3d 64, 71-72; P_qulg 17 v. MUrlicipal Court (Gelardi) {1978) 84 C‘ai.Ape.3d 692, 698; fleggle v. Sugerior 18‘ C_ourt (Lozano) (1977) 69 Cal. App. 3d“47, 61. ) This is such a case. 19 case W in the at bar. the court specificaliy rejected-the. reasoning of higher 4 21 authority in that itruled pah‘ho “fir; OWMA UWA Pflflr>§ 22 imw/S \nwe heart WWW M ’b/Hx Owhdhf 23 24 WWI“ 0er Gaurmtleézfl V371 W WWW UVL tJ—c/ tEJ—a/I‘G5 Com§1NLt 0V1 I 25 25; Discretion must be "guided and controlled by fixed legal principles, . . . exercised In conformity with the spirit of the law and in a manner to serVe and not to impede or defeat the ends of substantial justice " (People v. Warner (1978) 20 Cal. 3d. 578 683.) In a legal sense, discretion is abused wheneverin the exercise thereof the coun exce \ds the bounds of reason, all oI' the Circumstances before it being considered. LStaie Farm Inc. v. Superior Court (1956) 47 Cal. 2d 428 432.) Here, the ruiing the by respondent court was beyon'd reason and was therefore an abuse of discretion in excess of the respondent court's jurisdiction. As such, a writ shouid issue. For these reasons. petitioner respectfully requests that this Court grant the relief requested. DATED [£6 _ (a [S Hespectfuliysubmitted, 19 20 M'@ Petitionet irI pm 'r’r 21 22 23‘ 24 25 126