Barnett

Barnett v. Superior Court

Good Law
145 Cal. App. 4th 495·51 Cal. Rptr. 3d 741
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 5, 2006C051311California29,400 words

Opinion

Opinion

Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Mary Jo Graves, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Ward A. Campbell, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Erie L. Christoffersen, Deputy Attorney General, for Real Party in Interest.

Penal Code [1] section 1054.9 allows persons subject to a sentence of death or life in prison without the possibility of parole to file a motion for postconviction discovery to assist in seeking a writ of habeas corpus or an order vacating the judgment. In In re Steele (2004) 32 Cal.4th 682 , 10 Cal.Rptr.3d 536 , 85 P.3d 444 , the California Supreme Court resolved a number of "important procedural and substantive issues regarding that section," ( id. at p. 688, 10 Cal.Rptr.3d 536 , 85 P.3d 444 ) but the court left many other issues unresolved.

Here, we have occasion to continue the work begun in Steele . In 2004, shortly after the publication of Steele , petitioner Lee Max Barnett filed a comprehensive motion for discovery under section 1054.9 in Butte County Superior Court. Ultimately, the court granted many of Barnett's requests but denied many others. Barnett brought this writ proceeding to challenge…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.