Opinion
C099236
10-09-2023
SHAWN JONATHAN MELCHER, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY, Respondent; THE PEOPLE, Real Party in Interest.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Super. Ct. Nos. STK-CR-FE-2023-0006157, STK-CR-FMISC-2023-0006945.
MAURO, Acting P. J.
This petition for writ of mandate by Shawn Jonathan Melcher challenges a June 6, 2023 decision by respondent San Joaquin County Superior Court denying 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 June 6, 2023, petitioner was charged by complaint with evading a peace officer with wanton disregard in violation of Vehicle Code section 2800.2, subdivision (a), a felony, and driving with a suspended license in violation of Vehicle Code section 14601.1, subdivision (a), a misdemeanor. That same day he was arraigned before the magistrate, who denied bail. He sought relief in the superior court by filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus, which was denied on August 10, 2023.
On September 25, 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. Section 12 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 directing the San Joaquin County Superior Court to (1) vacate its June 6, 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).) Petitioner's motion for immediate interim relief, filed on September 20, 2023, is denied as moot in light of our disposition of this matter.
We concur: KRAUSE, J., BOULWARE EURIE, J.