Curl

Curl v. Superior Court

Good Law
140 Cal. App. 4th 310·2006 Cal. App. LEXIS 855·2006 Daily Journal DAR 7159·44 Cal. Rptr. 3d 320·2006 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4920
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 9, 2006F047313California5,228 words

Opinion

Opinion

Ardaiz, J.

INTRODUCTION

In 1993 petitioner Robert Zane Curl was convicted of the first degree murder of Richard Urban with the special circumstance that petitioner had previously been convicted (in 1977) of second degree murder. He was sentenced to death. His automatic appeal is presently pending before the California Supreme Court. In April of 2004 petitioner filed in superior court a motion for postconviction discovery pursuant to Penal Code section 1054.9. After a flurry of briefing and supplemental briefing, and two hearings, the superior court issued its order on the motion. The court granted three of petitioner’s 29 discovery requests (Nos. 8, 10 & B-l), partially granted two others (Nos. 1 & 11) and denied the remaining 24 requests (Nos. 2 through 7, 9, A-l, A-2, A-3, A-4, A-5, A-6, B-l, B-2, C-l, D-l, D-2, D-3, D-4, E-l, E-2, E-3 & E-4).

The court’s ruling on petitioner’s discovery requests did not include an explanation, for each numbered request, as to why the court was granting or denying the request. The court’s ruling gave a general explanation or framework, at the beginning of its ruling, as to the court’s understanding of section 1054.9. Part of that framework was…

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.