In re Carrillo

DISCUSSION

On April 8, 2012, defendant filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus asserting that his detention on an increased bond violated sections 1270.1 and 1289 as well as his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, and seeks to have his bail reinstated at $90,000. He argues due process and the Sixth Amendment require an open hearing, and refutes that the language of section 1289 permits ex parte in camera bail hearings. Lastly, deducing that confidential information was used at the hearing, he contends he is entitled to discover the material relied on by the prosecution in raising his bail. The People counter that no notice to defendant was required by the literal language of sections 1270.1 and 1289. I. Well-settled principles govern the court‘s ability to set, increase, or reduce bail. ―Except under limited circumstances, the California Constitution guarantees a pretrial right to release on nonexcessive bail. (Cal. Const. art I, § 12.). . . . The court in setting, reducing, or denying bail must primarily consider the public safety. [Citation.] Additionally, the court considers the seriousness of the offense charged, the defendant‘s criminal record and the probability the…