Montez

Montez v. Superior Court

Good Law
1992 Cal. App. LEXIS 313·4 Cal. App. 4th 577·5 Cal. Rptr. 2d 723·92 Daily Journal DAR 3348·92 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2138
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 11, 1992B052892California3,286 words

Opinion

Opinion

Turner, J.

I. Introduction

Petitioner Alfredo Montez (defendant) seeks a writ of prohibition directing the respondent court to set aside an order denying a motion to dismiss pursuant to Penal Code section 995. The motion raised several issues concerning the application of Proposition 115 which was adopted by the voters on June 5,1990, and which went into effect on June 6, 1990. Because the respondent court incorrectly denied the dismissal motion, the petition is granted.

II. Procedural and Factual Matters

Defendant is charged in an information with residential burglary in violation of sections 459 and 462, subdivision (a). The sole witness who testified at the preliminary examination was Detective Eugene Akesson of the Los Angeles Police Department. Detective Akesson was a burglary investigator and had been a police officer for 22 years. As part of his duties “[a]s a burglary detective” he investigated the incident which gave rise to the filing of the complaint. When he testified, Detective Akesson read from an arrest report prepared by an Officer Reems, who had been a police officer for two years. The report was prepared with the assistance of an Officer Granillo. As part of his…

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.