Court Opinion

ID: 9406834
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-03 23:03:27.888831+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:33.458282
License: Public Domain

Filed 7/3/23 Dunn 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                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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)
                                                            ----

                                                                                               C098537

 JASON ANDREW DUNN, SR.,                                                            (Super. Ct. No. STK-CR-
                                                                                     FMISC-2023-0003976)
                    Petitioner,

           v.

 THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN JOAQUIN
 COUNTY,

                    Respondent;

 THE PEOPLE,

                    Real Party in Interest.

         This petition for writ of mandate by Jason Andrew Dunn, Sr., challenges a
March 3, 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

                                                             1
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 March 3, 2023, petitioner was charged by complaint with being a felon in
                                                      1
possession of a firearm in violation of Penal Code section 29800, subdivision (a)(1) and
possession of ammunition in violation of section 30305, subdivision (a)(1). That same
day he was arraigned before the magistrate and denied bail. He sought relief in the
superior court by filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus, which was denied on May 4,
2023.
        On May 18, 2023, this court advised the parties that it was considering treating the
petition for writ of habeas corpus filed in this court as a petition for writ of mandate and
requested real party in interest, the People, serve and file an informal written response to
the petition. The People filed an opposition on June 12, 2023, and petitioner filed a reply
to the opposition on June 15, 2023. We subsequently directed the petition be treated as a
petition for writ of mandate and 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.)

                                         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

1   All further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

                                               2
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, No. S277910,
which holds that persons who do not fall within any of the exceptions set forth in section
12 are entitled to bail. (Id. 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 March 3, 2023, ruling denying petitioner bail; and (2) hold a
new bail hearing consistent with the procedures described in In re Humphrey (2021)

                                                 3
11 Cal.5th 135, which sets forth the relevant factors the court must consider in
determining bail. (Id. at pp. 152-156.)

                                                 HULL, Acting P.J.

We concur:

RENNER, J.

EARL, J.

                                             4