citing, inter alia, In re Ramirez, 89 Cal.App.4th 1312, 108 Cal. Rptr.2d 229, 232 (2001
How later courts described this case
- citing, inter alia, In re Ramirez, 89 Cal.App.4th 1312, 108 Cal. Rptr.2d 229, 232 (2001
- citing, inter alia, In re Ramirez, 89 Cal.App.4th 1312, 1316, 108 Cal.Rptr.2d 229, 232 (2001
- citing, inter alia, In re Ramirez, 108 Cal. Rptr. 2d 229, 232 (Ct. App. 2001
- noting the “prosecution cannot reasonably be held responsible for evidence in the possession of all governmental agencies, including those not involved in the investigation or prosecution of the case”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
WERDEGAR, J .
I concur entirely in the majority opinion, with one exception: I find its suggestion that a petitioner having an execution date “may, and usually should” (maj. opn., ante, at p. 692, fn. 1), file any discovery motion in this court in the first instance not readily inferable from Penal Code section 1054.9. Notwithstanding its persuasive rationale for directing petitioners generally to file discovery motions in the superior court in the first instance (maj. opn., ante, at pp. 691-692), the majority seemingly fails to recognize that the filing of a discovery motion directly in this court would be more expeditious in only those exceptional instances when the motion is patently meritorious or nonmeritorious as a matter of law. At any rate, however sound the suggestion as a matter of judicial convenience, and irrespective of whether the Judicial Council might have the power to adopt suitable rules pertaining thereto, the suggestion—which, in not even purporting to bind petitioners, seems scarcely likely to “expedite” in any reliable way “our consideration of any final challenges to the judgment” (id. at p. 692, fn. 1)—is one that more appropriately should be implemented by legislative amendment.