Hurd

Hurd v. Superior Court

Good Law
144 Cal. App. 4th 1100·2006 Cal. App. LEXIS 1802·2006 Daily Journal DAR 15086·50 Cal. Rptr. 3d 893·2006 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 10550
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 15, 2006B184870California4,856 words

Opinion

Opinion

Willhite, J.

In this mandate proceeding, we hold that Penal Code section 1054.9 authorizes a pre-habeas corpus motion for discovery of peace officer personnel records pursuant to Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531 [ 113 Cal.Rptr. 897 , 522 P.2d 305 ] (Pitchess) and Evidence Code section 1043. We further hold that a criminal defendant who makes such a motion without having made one during the original prosecution must show that the records are material to the habeas corpus claims he or she proposes, and that those proposed claims are cognizable on habeas corpus. Here, because the decision in the direct appeal makes the requested discovery immaterial, and because the proposed claims are not cognizable on habeas corpus, we deny relief.

BACKGROUND

A jury convicted petitioner Dale Ray Hurd of the first degree murder of his estranged wife, and found true the special circumstance allegation of murder for financial gain, and the allegation that he personally used a firearm. (Pen. Code, §§ 187, 190.2, subd. (a), and 12022.5, subd. (a), respectively.) He was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole, plus four years for the handgun use allegation.

On…

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.