Opinion
F082191
04-30-2021
In re JUSTIN DESATOFF, On Habeas Corpus.
Justin Desatoff, in pro. per. Lisa A. Smittcamp, District Attorney, and Kelsey C. Peterson, Deputy District Attorney, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Fresno Super. Ct. No. F17905266)
OPINION
THE COURT ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for writ of habeas corpus. Justin Desatoff, in pro. per. Lisa A. Smittcamp, District Attorney, and Kelsey C. Peterson, Deputy District Attorney, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Before Levy, Acting P.J., Detjen, J., and Meehan, J. --------
-ooOoo-
On December 30, 2020, petitioner filed a "Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus," challenging the superior court's May 15, 2020, ruling denying his motion to modify his bail under Penal Code section 1270.1. Petitioner contended the superior court failed to take into consideration the factors set forth in In re Humphrey (2018) 19 Cal.App.5th 1006, at his bail determination hearing. While briefing was pending in response to this petition, the Supreme Court issued In re Humphrey (2021) 11 Cal.5th 135 (Humphrey) on March 25, 2021. The Supreme Court held:
"Where the record reflects the risk of flight or a risk to public or victim safety, the court should consider whether nonfinancial conditions of release may reasonably protect the public and the victim or reasonably assure the arrestee's presence at trial. If the court concludes that money bail is reasonably necessary, then the court must consider the individual arrestee's ability to pay, along with the seriousness of the charged offense and the arrestee's criminal record, and—unless there is a valid basis for detention—set bail at a level the arrestee can reasonably afford. And if a court concludes that public or victim safety, or the arrestee's appearance in court, cannot be reasonably assured if the arrestee is released, it may detain the arrestee only if it first finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that no nonfinancial condition of release can reasonably protect those interests." (In re Humphrey, supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 154.)
On April 8, 2021, the prosecution filed its response. The prosecution conceded the proper remedy in this case was to vacate the prior bail determination and hold a new bail determination hearing that comports with the law as set forth in Humphrey.
In light of the Supreme Court ruling in Humphrey, and the prosecution's concession the bail determination hearing should be vacated and the matter remanded for a new bail hearing, we will direct issuance of a peremptory writ in the first instance. (Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 171, 177-180.) Petitioner's right to relief is obvious, and no useful purpose would be served by issuance of an alternative writ, further briefing, and oral argument. (Ng v. Superior Court (1992) 4 Cal.4th 29, 35; see Lewis v. Superior Court (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1232, 1236-1237, 1240-1241; Brown, Winfield & Canzoneri, Inc. v. Superior Court (2010) 47 Cal.4th 1233, 1240-1244.)
DISPOSITION
Let a peremptory writ issue directing the Fresno County Superior Court to vacate its May 15, 2020 bail determination hearing order and to set a new bail determination hearing, taking into consideration the requirements set forth in In re Humphrey, supra, 11 Cal.5th 135. This court takes no position regarding whether the hearing should result in the reduction of the amount of petitioner's bail, or if the terms of his pretrial custody should otherwise be modified.
In the interests of justice and to prevent further delays, this decision shall be final as to this court immediately. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.490(b)(2)(A).) The remittitur will issue immediately upon the finality of this opinion as to this court, should the parties so stipulate. (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.272(c)(1) & 8.490(d).)