Court Opinion

ID: 9840970
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-20 20:04:57.790895+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:32:04.261095
License: Public Domain

Filed 9/20/23 Hayes v. Superior Court CA3
                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
                                      THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                                    (San Joaquin)
                                                            ----

 AMIR MALIK HAYES,                                                                             C099237

                    Petitioner,                                                     (Super. Ct. No. STK-CR-
                                                                                     FECOD-2023-0007227)
           v.

 THE SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY SUPERIOR
 COURT,

                    Respondent;

 THE PEOPLE,

                    Real Party in Interest.

         This petition for writ of mandate by Amir Malik Hayes, challenges a July 7, 2023,
decision by respondent San Joaquin County Superior Court denying him 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.

                                                             1
                                FACTUAL BACKGROUND
       On July 7, 2023, petitioner was charged by complaint with unlawful possession of
a firearm by a former juvenile ward in violation of Penal Code section 29820, subdivision
(b), felon in possession of a firearm in violation of Penal Code section 29800, subdivision
(a)(1), possession of ammunition in violation of Penal Code section 30305, subdivision
(a)(1), evading an officer with wanton disregard in violation of Vehicle Code section
2800.2, subdivision (a), and criminal street gang activity in violation of Penal Code
section 186.22, subdivision (a). That same day he was arraigned before the magistrate
and denied bail.
       On September 8, 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. That section 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

                                              2
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: (1) directing San Joaquin County
Superior Court vacate its July 7, 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).)

                                                     /s/
                                                 EARL, P. J.

We concur:

    /s/
HULL, J.

    /s/
ROBIE, J.

                                             3