Error and/or relief
In 2023, the defendant filed a motion in the trial court for postjudgment discovery pursuant to Penal Code section 1054.9, in advance of filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus. The defendant alleged he was arrested, charged, and convicted as a result of racial bias by the police department and the district attorney, and that his defense counsel was prejudicially ineffective. He appealed from the court’s denial of a portion of his motion. It was not an appealable order. We treat this as a petition for writ of mandate.
(Gary note: The court denied the petition, but I have included the “gold”–its principles–for educational reasons. Which is really the point of this entire blog, of course.)
First Holding:
A party must seek review of the trial court’s denial of a section 1054.9 motion for postconviction discovery by filing a petition for writ of mandate rather than an appeal.
Authority:
In re Steele (2004) 32 Cal.4th 682, 688
People v. Serrano (2024) 106 Cal.App.5th 276, 292
Second Holding:
Given the procedural background of this case, rather than dismiss the appeal, we exercise our discretion to treat it as a petition for writ of mandate in the interests of judicial economy.
Authority:
People v. Payne (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 933, 937
People v. Picklesimer (2010) 48 Cal.4th 330, 335
Third Holding:
A motion for postjudgment discovery filed pursuant to section 1054.9 may be made in anticipation of filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus but before the petition is actually filed. However, the statute provides only limited discovery. It does not allow free-floating discovery asking for virtually anything the prosecution possesses.
Authority:
In re Steele (2004) 32 Cal.4th 682, 691
Barnett v. Superior Court (2010) 50 Cal.4th 890, 894
Fourth Holding:
The trial court’s ruling on a motion under section 1054.9 is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.
Authority:
Kennedy v. Superior Court (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 359, 366
Gary Note:
(Gary note: I wrote a Gary Musings on the code section at issue here, focusing on the statutory duty it imposes on counsel to retain a copy of [insert appropriate adjective, depending on how YOU read the subdivision, but for lack of a better term at the moment, “certain” will do] clients’ files in a digital format in color. It went up on the blog on June 21, 2026, under the category “Gary Musings.” The article’s title is “To Save, Or Not To Save (the client’s file).”)