Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING. Petition for Habeas Corpus. Marsha N. Revel, Judge. Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA306078
Jonathan B. Steiner, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Petitioner.
Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Linda C. Johnson and Robert C. Schneider, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
TURNER, P. J.
Defendant, Tredis Earl Ferguson, has filed a habeas corpus petition alleging that: we conditionally reversed the judgment in his direct appeal and ordered the trial court to conduct an in camera review of peace officer personal records (People v. Ferguson (July 23, 2008, B198407) [nonpub. opn.]; opn. mod. Aug. 18, 2008); prior to the issuance of the remittitur, on October 29, 2008, the trial court conducted the in camera hearing without notice to defendant; during the in camera proceeding, the trial court denied defendant’s motion to compel disclosure of peace officer personnel records; and because defendant had no knowledge of the order denying his motion to compel disclosure of peace officer personnel records, he did not file a timely notice of appeal. We requested the Attorney General file an informal response to defendant’s habeas corpus petition. We then set the matter for oral argument and suggested this could be the rare case where, in light of the concessions in the informal response of the Attorney General, we could issue a writ of habeas corpus without issuance of an order to show cause. (People v. Romero (1994) 8 Cal.4th 728, 740, fn. 7.)
At oral argument, the parties agreed that the following course of action would be the most economical and would not require issuance of an order to show cause. First, we would issue our writ of habeas corpus as the trial court did not have jurisdiction to rule on defendant’s motion to compel disclosure of peace officer personnel records. (People v. Flores (2003) 30 Cal.4th 1059, 1064; People v. Perez (1979) 23 Cal.3d 545, 554.) Second, upon issuance of the remittitur in connection with this writ of habeas corpus, the trial court is to conduct the in camera hearing specified in our prior unpublished opinion as modified. (People v. Ferguson, supra, B198407.) Third, defendant’s attorney, Jonathan Steiner, Esquire, is to be notified of the date and place of the in camera hearing. Mr. Steiner may not attend the actual in camera hearing. But Mr. Steiner should be present in open court so that he can respond to any inquiries. And if the trial court orders disclosure of peace officer personnel records, he will be provided with the relevant documents so that the prejudice issue may be litigated. Also, Mr. Steiner is to be present in open court so that defendant will be notified of any adverse ruling so a timely appeal may be taken from the post-judgment order if it is appropriate to do so. Fourth, the in camera hearing is to be transcribed. Copies are to be made of all documents reviewed by the trial court, if any. Any documents are to be marked as court exhibits and sealed so as to permit proper appellate review as warranted.
The petition for writ of habeas corpus is granted. Once the remittitur is issued, the trial court is to proceed as specified in the second paragraph of this opinion.
We concur: ARMSTRONG, J., KRIEGLER, J.