Hall

Hall v. Superior Court

Good Law
133 Cal. App. 4th 908·2005 Cal. App. LEXIS 1662·2005 Daily Journal DAR 12742·35 Cal. Rptr. 3d 206·2005 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9377
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 26, 2005B184247California5,334 words

Opinion

Opinion

Johnson, J.

Panchita Hall seeks a writ of mandate to compel respondent superior court to permit her to file her Pitchess motion and to rule on the merits of her motion. She claims the Criminal Division of the South Central District of the Los Angeles County Superior Court enforces an invalid local rule requiring all pretrial motions, regardless of nature or type, be both filed and heard 30 days before trial, and for this reason the court refused to calendar her Pitchess motion filed 30 days before trial. We conclude the court’s apparent practice of requiring all motions to be filed and heard 30 days before trial is invalid because it was not properly promulgated in accordance with statute or with the California Rules of Court. We further conclude that to the extent the court is not making individualized assessments of the needs and complexities of each case before setting dates for hearing motions the court’s local practice or policy is similarly suspect. Accordingly, we will issue a writ of mandate to grant the requested relief.

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW

An undercover vice officer arrested petitioner Hall for prostitution on April 14, 2005. An information filed on May 25, 2005,…

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.