1

Filed 7/15/15 P. v. Super. Ct. (Morales) CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE,

Petitioner,

v.

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF 

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY,

Respondent;

JOHNNY MORALES,

Real Party in Interest.

E061754

(Super.Ct.No. FVA015456)

OPINION

ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for writ of mandate. Ingrid Adamson 

Uhler, Judge. Petition granted.

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Senior Assistant Attorney 

General, Holly D. Wilkens and Michael T. Murphy, Deputy Attorneys General, for 

Petitioner.

No appearance for Respondent.
2

Michael J. Hersek, State Public Defender, and Cheryl Delaine Renard, Senior 

Deputy State Public Defender, for Real Party in Interest.

On request of real party in interest Johnny Morales, the trial court entered an order 

requiring multiple public agencies and departments to “preserve” 22 categories of 

documents and other materials1 allegedly to pertain in some way to the criminal 

proceedings which resulted in a judgment of death against petitioner.

The People sought review by way of petition for writ of mandate from this court, 

arguing that the trial court had no jurisdiction to make such an order in the absence of any 

pending proceeding. We agree that the order is erroneous, and will grant the relief 

requested.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Morales’s motion requested that “materials potentially relevant to his case be kept 

intact so that future litigation can center on the fairness of his conviction and death 

sentence, and not on tangential issues such as whether materials should have been 

destroyed or whether destroyed materials would have favored the prosecution or 

appellant [Morales].” It appears that Morales was sentenced in 2005 and his appeal is 

pending before the Supreme Court of California. Morales asserted, without 

contradiction, that although he has been appointed appellate counsel (who prepared the 

motion), he has not yet been appointed counsel to pursue any habeas corpus remedy. 

 

1

 A copy of real party in interest’s order, consisting of seven pages, listing the 22 

categories of documents he wishes to preserve is attached as Appendix A, post.
3

It was also asserted in the motion that “the duty falls to appellate counsel to 

preserve all materials arguably governed by [Penal Code] section 1054.9[2]so that the 

Legislature’s intention to provide condemned people like appellant with postjudgment 

discovery can be given full force and effect.”3

The People opposed the motion on the primary ground that the trial court lacked 

jurisdiction to grant the requested relief in the absence of some pending recognized 

proceeding. The People also argued that the request imposed an undue burden on the 

various agencies and departments specified.

After hearing argument, the trial court made the order set out above. The People 

sought a writ of mandate to vacate the order and this court issued an order to show 

cause.4

 

2 All subsequent statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise 

specified.

3

 Penal Code section 1054.9 provides that “(a) Upon the prosecution of a 

postconviction writ of habeas corpus or a motion to vacate a judgment in a case in which 

a sentence of death or of life in prison without the possibility of parole has been imposed, 

and on a showing that good faith efforts to obtain discovery materials from trial counsel 

were made and were unsuccessful, the [trial] court shall, except as provided in 

subdivision (c), order that the defendant be provided reasonable access to any of the 

materials described in subdivision (b). [¶] (b) For purposes of this section, ‘discovery 

materials’ means materials in the possession of the prosecution and law enforcement 

authorities to which the same defendant would have been entitled at time of trial.”

4

 MORALES asserts that writ review is not necessary because the People have an 

adequate remedy at law by appeal. Our issuance of the order to show cause reflects our 

determination that the remedy at law is not adequate, and we decline to revisit the issue. 

(See Marron v. Superior Court (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 1049, 1056.) We will discuss his 

other procedural objections below. 
4

DISCUSSION

First, we have no quarrel with Morales’s description of the delays in the death 

penalty review process. However, the issue is not whether the procedure sought by 

Morales is desirable, but whether it is authorized by law. 

In addition to arguing that writ review is unnecessary (see fn. 4, post), Morales 

focuses on procedural challenges to the People’s attempt to overset the ruling. He argues 

first that the People failed to “specifically [] allege, or allege sufficient facts to make even 

a prima facie showing, that it has a beneficial interest or substantial right that will be 

substantially damaged if writ relief is denied . . . .” The gist of this argument is that the 

public agencies and departments listed in the motion did not object and therefore the 

People may not do so.

There are two flaws in this argument. The first is that consent (and a fortiori

inaction) cannot confer jurisdiction where none exists. (See People v. Alanis (2008) 158 

Cal.App.4th 1467, 1473 [also involving postjudgment trial court proceedings while 

defendant’s appeal was pending].) The second is that the People are an interested party 

as multiple categories do impose a duty on the People to preserve evidence. For 

example, item “c.” describes “[a]ll prosecutorial and law enforcement reports, notes, tape 

recordings, . . .” while item “f.” specifies “[a]ll writings or other records relating to the 

decision by the San Bernardino County District Attorney’s Office to seek the death 

penalty, . . .” and “t.” refers to “[a]ll criminal files relating to other suspects and/or 

witnesses related to this case including the following: [names] whether in the possession 
5

or control of the San Bernardino County Superior Court, the San Bernardino County 

District Attorney’s Office . . . .” Thus, the People, acting through the district attorney, 

were directly affected by the order and were entitled to appear and oppose it both in the 

trial court and before this court.5 Furthermore, the order would inevitably oblige the 

affected departments and entities to conduct a search of records and devise some method 

of segregating any materials which might conceivably fall within the order.

Morales also complains that the People inadequately allege the justification for 

extraordinary relief as set out in Code of Civil Procedure, sections 1085 and 1086. To the 

extent that this reflects the position that the People are not a party “beneficial[ly]

interest[ed]” and that they have an adequate remedy at law, we have explained our 

disagreement.6 To the extent that Morales challenges the technical adequacy of the 

pleading with respect to alleging these elements, we are unpersuaded. First, any such 

objection to the pleading is properly raised by demurrer, not argument. (See Gong v. City 

 

5

 It may also be questioned whether the mailed notice of the motion was sufficient 

to subject the various agencies and departments to the court’s authority. The usual way 

of acquiring personal jurisdiction is by personal service; in the somewhat analogous 

context of compelling the attendance of a witness or the production of evidence, a 

subpoena must be personally served. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.) 

6

 Morales also sets up a straw man by reasoning that the People’s opposition is 

based upon the notion that they (and the other agencies) have a “ ‘substantial right’ to 

destroy the subject materials . . . before any discovery order can be made,” and then 

argues that this “subverts” the purposes of section 1054.9 and is “incompatible with 

RPI’s most basic fundamental rights to fairness and heightened reliability in the death 

judgment against him.” We do not read the People’s arguments as evincing any zeal to 

destroy any evidence, but merely as objecting in principle to the court’s attempt to issue 

an unjustified order imposing not-insignificant burdens.
6

of Fremont (1967) 250 Cal.App.2d 568, 573.) Second, where the petition contains 

sufficient facts from which the omitted facts can be gleaned, we have discretion to 

consider it despite technical inadequacies. (Chapman v. Superior Court (2005) 130

Cal.App.4th 261, 271-272.) The district attorney’s apparent unfamiliarity with pleading 

formats does not require us to refuse relief where warranted. 

Morales then argues that the petition must be denied because the People cannot 

plead and prove that the trial court had a clear duty to deny his motion for lack of 

jurisdiction. It is true that it is often said that mandate issues to compel a lower court or 

officer to perform a “clear duty” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1085; see City of King City v. 

Community Bank of Central California (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 913, 925) and of course it 

cannot control the exercise of discretion. (City of Oakland v. Superior Court (1996) 45 

Cal.App.4th 740, 751.) But mandate is available to correct abuses of discretion (Alejo v. 

Torlakson (2013) 212 Cal.App.4th 768, 780) and an error of law is an “abuse of 

discretion” correctable by mandate. (People v. Superior Court (Humberto S.) (2008) 43 

Cal.4th 737, 746.) As we find a clear error of law, mandate will lie.

We now explain our reasoning on the merits. First, it must be noted that this is not

a request for actual postconviction discovery under section 1054.9. It is quite true that 

although that statute refers to such discovery “ ‘[u]pon the prosecution of a 

postconviction writ of habeas corpus or a motion to vacate a judgment,’ ” (In re Steele

(2004) 32 Cal.4th 682, 690-691) this does not mean that an actual petition or motion must 

have been filed at the time discovery is sought. It is sufficient if such a request for 
7

collateral relief is proposed or in preparation. However, since this is not a request under 

section 1054.97the permissiveness of that statute does not govern this case.

Before the enactment of section 1054.9, the Supreme Court in People v. Gonzalez

(1990) 51 Cal.3d 1179 (Gonzalez) dealt with an effort by a capital defendant, pending 

resolution of his appeal, to obtain official file information about a jailhouse informant

who had testified against him at trial. In that case, the court held that “[t]he trial 

court lacked jurisdiction to order ‘free-floating’ postjudgment discovery when no 

criminal proceeding was then pending before it.” (Gonzalez, at p. 1256.) Quoting from 

previous authority, it explained that “ ‘a discovery motion is not an independent right or 

remedy. It is ancillary to an ongoing action or proceeding. After the judgment has 

become final, there is nothing pending in the trial court to which a discovery motion may 

attach.’ . . . [¶] [This] reasoning applies equally where, as here, an appeal remains 

undecided.” (Id. at p. 1257.) Stressing the presumptions of validity applicable to a 

collateral attack on a criminal judgment, the court held that “[t]he state may properly 

require that a defendant obtain some concrete information on his own before he invokes 

collateral remedies against a final judgment.” (Id. at p. 1260.) Thus, discovery would 

only be available once the reviewing court (the Supreme Court) issued an order to show 

cause upon a finding that a habeas corpus petition stated a prima facie case for relief. (Id.

 

7

 Such a request must show that the materials either were provided to the 

defendant at trial, or should have been provided pursuant either to a discovery order in 

the case or the prosecution’s constitutional obligations. (See In re Steele, supra, at 

p. 697.) It must also show “that good faith efforts to obtain discovery materials from trial 

counsel were made and were unsuccessful . . . .” (§ 1054.9, subd. (a).)
8

at pp. 1260-1261.) Gonzalez was then followed by People v. Johnson (1992) 3 Cal.4th 

1183, 1258, and in People v. Picklesimer (2010) 48 Cal.4th 330, 337 (Picklesimer), the 

court again confirmed that a motion is not an independent remedy but implies the 

pendency of an ongoing action.8

The court in In re Steele, supra, 32 Cal.4th 682 recognized that section 1054.9 

affected the rule of Gonzalez to the extent covered by the statute. But the court’s 

comment was that section 1054.9 “modifies” and reflects a “modification” of the rule, not 

that Gonzalez retains no further validity. (In re Steele, supra, at p. 691.) The court 

stressed that, in the language of Gonzalez, even the new legislation “does not allow ‘freefloating’ discovery asking for virtually anything the prosecution possesses.” (In re 

Steele, supra, 32 Cal.4th at p. 695.) It also commented that section 1054.9 “imposes no 

preservation duties that do not otherwise exist.” (In re Steele, supra, at p. 695.)

Morales argues that the order was authorized by Wisely v. Superior Court (1985) 

175 Cal.App.3d 267, 270, in which the appellate court found it “fundamentally unfair” to 

deny discovery to a defendant who had been granted a new trial, while the People’s 

appeal of that order was pending. The reasoning of Wisely clearly did not impress the 

Supreme Court in Gonzalez, which found it “inapposite,” “whatever its merits,”

 

8

 Picklesimer, supra, 48 Cal.4th 330 involved the efforts of a petitioner long ago 

convicted of voluntary oral copulation with a 16- or 17-year-old minor (§ 288a, 

subdivision (b)(1)) to remove the requirement of mandatory sex offender registration 

after the court found an equal protection violation in People v. Hofsheier (2006) 37 

Cal.4th 1185. Picklesimer holds that relief must be sought by a petition for writ of 

mandate. 
9

(Gonzalez, supra, 51 Cal.3d at p. 1257) because the new trial order at least provided an 

arguable basis for continuing jurisdiction.9 Here, although Morales claims that the 

preservation order is essential to protect his right to pursue collateral relief by habeas 

corpus, there is simply no pending case or proceeding to which the motion can attach. 

Accordingly, the trial court had no subject matter jurisdiction. 

We recognize that if Morales had chosen to proceed by filing a barebones habeas 

corpus petition, there would at least have been a proceeding to which his request could 

have attached, and the trial court could have reached the merits.10 However, counsel has 

carefully observed the boundaries of his role as counsel on appeal and elected not to file 

a collateral proceeding. We also recognize that some of the materials which he seeks to 

have preserved and which are not subject to any statutory preservation obligation may be 

of value to him in presenting a claim for relief on habeas corpus. However, our decision 

is guided by two points: first, that this is not a legislatively authorized motion under 

 

9

 The standard rule, of course, is that an appeal deprives the court of jurisdiction 

going to the merits of the case—that is, anything that might interfere with the appellate 

court’s effective resolution of the case. (People v. Alanis (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1467, 

1472.)

10

 We do not determine whether the issuance of a preservation order would be 

proper. The scope of the motion appears to have gone far beyond the limits of 

section 1054.9; it was not established that the materials sought could not be obtained 

from counsel or should have been turned over by the prosecution. Nor was any effort 

made to explain what information Morales ever hoped to find in more obscure categories 

which did not visibly fall within the ambit of materials to which he would have been 

entitled at trial. However, we need not, and do not, attempt to establish the level of 

“good cause,” if any, which could support a preservation order—again, assuming that one 

could be made.
10

section 1054.9, and second, that Supreme Court precedent otherwise forbids trial courts 

from ruling on such a “free-floating” motion as was presented here. We are not at liberty 

to ignore Gonzalez, especially as the court in Steele noted the limited extent to which 

section 1054.9 altered Gonzalez’s rule. 

Accordingly, we find that the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction in issuing the 

preservation order and we will issue the writ. 

DISPOSITION

Let a peremptory writ of mandate issue, directing the Superior Court of San 

Bernardino County to vacate its order for preservation of evidence, and to enter a new 

order denying real party in interest’s motion. 

Petitioner is directed to prepare and have the peremptory writ of mandate issued, 

copies served, and the original filed with the clerk of this court, together with proof of 

service on all parties. 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

KING

J.

We concur:

McKINSTER

Acting P. J.

CODRINGTON

J.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17