Pride

DISCUSSION

There is no requirement in In re Steele (2004) 32 Cal.4th 682 (Steele) that a

defendant seeking discovery under Penal Code section 1054.9 prove that he or she has an

actual, physical petition for writ of habeas corpus waiting for the “final touches.” All that

is required is that such a petition be in some state of preparation (Steele, at p. 691; Curl v.

Superior Court (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 310.) The petition is not inadequate in this

respect. Although petitioner may not be entitled to all items sought, his request has

sufficient specificity and clarity and Kennedy v. Superior Court (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th

359 does not apply. Nor do the cases require a defendant to articulate his or her theories

of relief before obtaining the statutory discovery. Finally, we decline to hold that the

absence of a proof of service of the demand letters to trial counsel invalidates petitioner’s

request.

Hence, we can find no basis for the trial court’s flat denial of the motion for

discovery.

DISPOSITION

Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandate is granted in part. Let a peremptory

writ of mandate issue directing the Superior Court of San Bernardino County to vacate…