Opinion
C099237
09-20-2023
AMIR MALIK HAYES, Petitioner, v. THE SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, Respondent; THE PEOPLE, Real Party in Interest.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Super. Ct. No. STK-CR-FECOD-2023-0007227
EARL, P. J.This petition for writ of mandate by Amir Malik Hayes, challenges a July 7, 2023, decision by respondent San Joaquin County Superior Court denying him bail. Petitioner claims respondent court erred in denying him bail because he does not fall within any of the exceptions to the general right to bail set forth in article I, section 12 of the California Constitution (section 12). We agree.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On July 7, 2023, petitioner was charged by complaint with unlawful possession of a firearm by a former juvenile ward in violation of Penal Code section 29820, subdivision (b), felon in possession of a firearm in violation of Penal Code section 29800, subdivision (a)(1), possession of ammunition in violation of Penal Code section 30305, subdivision (a)(1), evading an officer with wanton disregard in violation of Vehicle Code section 2800.2, subdivision (a), and criminal street gang activity in violation of Penal Code section 186.22, subdivision (a). That same day he was arraigned before the magistrate and denied bail.
On September 8, 2023, this court advised the parties that we were considering issuing a peremptory writ of mandate in the first instance and provided additional time to file any further opposition. (See Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 171.) None was received within the time provided.
DISCUSSION
Petitioner claims he is entitled to bail based on section 12. That section provides in relevant part: "A person shall be released on bail by sufficient sureties, except for:
"(a) Capital crimes when the facts are evident or the presumption great;
"(b) Felony offenses involving acts of violence on another person, or felony sexual assault offenses on another person, when the facts are evident or the presumption great and the court finds based upon clear and convincing evidence that there is a substantial likelihood the person's release would result in great bodily harm to others; or
"(c) Felony offenses when the facts are evident or the presumption great and the court finds based on clear and convincing evidence that the person has threatened another with great bodily harm and that there is a substantial likelihood that the person would carry out the threat if released."
Petitioner does not fall within any of the exceptions set forth in section 12. Accordingly, we find he is entitled to bail consistent with the reasoning of the court in In re Kowalczyk (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 667, review granted March 15, 2023, S277910, which holds that persons who do not fall within any of the exceptions set forth in section 12 are entitled to bail. (Kowalczyk, at pp. 684-685.)
DISPOSITION
Having complied with the procedural requirements for issuance of a peremptory writ in the first instance, we are authorized to issue a peremptory writ forthwith and without oral argument. (See Brown, Winfield &Canzoneri, Inc. v. Superior Court (2010) 47 Cal.4th 1233, 1243-1244; Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc., supra, 36 Cal.3d at p. 178.) Let a peremptory writ of mandate issue: (1) directing San Joaquin County Superior Court vacate its July 7, 2023, ruling denying petitioner bail; and (2) hold a new bail hearing consistent with the procedures described in In re Humphrey (2021) 11 Cal.5th 135, which sets forth the relevant factors the court must consider in determining bail. (Id. at pp. 152-156.) This opinion shall become final forthwith in this court immediately upon filing. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.490(b)(2)(A).)
We concur HULL, J., ROBIE, J.