People v. SUPERIOR COURT (BAEZ)

I agree with my colleagues that the appropriate standard of review is abuse of discretion. (People v. Ashmus (1991) 54 Cal.3d 932 [ 2 Cal.Rptr.2d 112 , 820 P.2d 214 ].) However, I would conclude that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering discovery in this case because Peter Baez failed to meet the “rigorous” standard set forth in United States v. Armstrong (1996) 517 U.S. 456, 468 [ 116 S.Ct. 1480, 1488 , 134 L.Ed.2d 687 ] (Armstrong). In my opinion, Baez failed to produce “ ‘some evidence tending to show the existence of the essential elements of the defense’ ” (ibid.) of discriminatory prosecution: that his prosecution for grand theft was “‘motivated by a discriminatory purpose’ ” (id. at p. 465 [ 116 S.Ct. at p. 1487 ]), and that the decision to prosecute him resulted in a discriminatory effect, in that similarly situated persons who were not involved with medical marijuana distribution “could have been prosecuted” for grand theft, but were not (id. at p. 469 [ 116 S.Ct. at p. 1488 ]).

Pertinent Facts

Baez, who suffers from AIDS, began receiving housing assistance through the Santa Clara County Housing Authority (SCCHA) in May of 1995. In his *1197 original…

Real party in interest Peter Baez was indicted on one count of grand theft and numerous marijuana counts. He sought discovery from the district attorney’s office in support of his contention that the district attorney’s pursuit of the grand theft count was an unconstitutionally discriminatory prosecution. The superior court granted Baez’s discovery motion. Asserting that the superior court abused its discretion in granting Baez’s motion, the People ask us to issue a peremptory writ of mandate directing the superior court to vacate its ruling. We find no abuse of discretion and deny the petition.

Facts

In May 1995, Baez began receiving housing assistance from the Santa Clara County Housing Authority (SCCHA). In his application for housing assistance, Baez stated that his only source of income was “SSI” (Supplemental Security Income from Social Security). Baez was eligible for housing assistance and SSI because he suffers from AIDS. SCCHA distributes funds provided by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Baez’s housing assistance was in the form of a check payable to his landlord. This check was for approximately $900 per month.

Recipients…

MIHARA, Judge.

Real party in interest Peter Baez was indicted on one count of grand theft and numerous marijuana counts. He sought discovery from the District Attorney's office in support of his contention that the District Attorney's pursuit of the grand theft count was an unconstitutionally discriminatory prosecution. The superior court granted Baez's discovery motion. Asserting that the superior court abused its discretion in granting Baez's motion, the People ask us to issue a peremptory writ of mandate directing the superior court to vacate its ruling. We find no abuse of discretion and deny the petition.

In May 1995, Baez began receiving housing assistance from the Santa Clara County Housing Authority (SCCHA). In his application for housing assistance, Baez stated that his only source of income was "SSI" (Supplemental Security Income from Social Security). Baez was eligible for housing assistance and SSI because he suffers from AIDS. SCCHA distributes funds provided by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Baez's housing assistance was in the form of a check payable to his landlord. This check was for approximately $900 per month.

Recipients…