Barnett

Barnett v. Superior Court

Good Law
164 Cal. App. 4th 18·79 Cal. Rptr. 3d 199
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 19, 2008C051311California27,579 words

Opinion

Opinion

Bill Lockyer and Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorneys General, Robert R. Anderson and Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorneys General, Mary Jo Graves, Assistant Attorney General, Ward A. Campbell, Michael P. Farrell and Eric L. Christoffersen, Deputy Attorneys General, for Real Party in Interest.

This writ proceeding arises out of Penal Code [1] section 1054.9, which 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 2004, 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 the denials.

In an earlier opinion in this proceeding, we decided a number of issues left unresolved by In re Steele (2004) 32 Cal.4th 682 [ 10 Cal.Rptr.3d 536 , 85 P.3d 444 ], a California Supreme Court decision that had decided some "important procedural and substantive issues regarding" section 1054.9. ( In re Steele, at p.…

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.