Luu

Defendant Hein Van Luu was charged in an information with assault with a firearm. The superior court granted his motion to dismiss. (Pen. Code, § 995.) The People appeal from the order. (§ 1238, subd. (a)(1).) Defendant claimed in his motion that the magistrate denied him substantial rights at his preliminary examination by violating the 10-day rule set forth in section 859b and by negating opportunities to learn the address of the victim. We conclude that defendant was not denied a substantial right and therefore reverse.

Standard of Review

“It is settled that denial of a substantial right at the preliminary examination renders the ensuing commitment illegal and entitles a defendant to dismissal of the information on timely motion.” {People v. PompaOrtiz (1980) 27 Cal.3d 519, 523 [ 165 Cal.Rptr. 851 , 612 P.2d 941 ].) Our review is an independent one where our task is to determine whether the defendant was denied a substantial right at the preliminary examination. {Id. at pp. 523-524; Wizar v. Superior Court (1981) 124 Cal.App.3d 190, 193-194 [ 177 Cal.Rptr. 88 ].)

Factual Background

At 2 a.m. on Halloween night, 1986, 16-year-old Tuan Ngo was leaving a pool hall…