Lindsey

INTRODUCTION

In this matter we have reviewed the petition and offered real party the opportunity

to file opposition; real party agrees that petitioner is entitled to relief. Accordingly,

issuance of a peremptory writ in the first instance is therefore appropriate. (Palma v. U.S.

Industrial Fasteners, Inc. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 171, 178.)

DISCUSSION

Petitioner is serving a life term and is therefore qualified to receive post-

conviction discovery pursuant to Penal Code section 1054.9. It is immaterial that he has

not yet filed a petition for habeas corpus; he may seek discovery in order to pursue the

possibility of such a petition. (In re Steele (2004) 32 Cal.4th 682.) We express no

opinion on whether petitioner’s delay in seeking relief will bear upon the proper

disposition of any habeas corpus petition. (See Catlin v. Superior Court (2011)

Cal.4th 300.)

Accordingly, the trial court’s stated basis for denying the request for discovery

was in error, and the request should have been considered on the merits.

DISPOSITION

Let a peremptory writ of mandate issue directing the Superior Court of San

Bernardino County to vacate its order denying the request for…