People v. Superior Court of San Bernardino Cnty.
213 Cal. Rptr. 3d 581
| Cal. | 2017Background
- Johnny Morales was sentenced to death in 2005; his automatic appeal to the California Supreme Court is pending and the State Public Defender (appellate counsel) represents him on appeal.
- Habeas corpus counsel (required for condemned prisoners) had not yet been appointed due to a shortage of qualified attorneys; appellate counsel’s appointment does not formally include preparing a habeas petition but Policy 3 requires preservation of evidence relevant to potential habeas investigation until habeas counsel is appointed.
- Appellate counsel filed a "Motion to Preserve Files, Records, Evidence and Other Items Related to Automatic Appeal" directing local law-enforcement and other agencies to preserve broad categories of materials potentially relevant to Morales or related persons; the motion also sought preservation of items beyond typical law-enforcement materials (e.g., jury commissioner, indigent defense program, court appointment records) and an accounting of whether materials existed or had been destroyed.
- The San Bernardino Superior Court granted the preservation order in full; the District Attorney opposed. The Court of Appeal issued a peremptory writ vacating the order and directing denial, holding the trial court lacked jurisdiction while the death judgment was on automatic appeal and the motion exceeded the scope of statutorily authorized postconviction discovery.
- The California Supreme Court reviewed whether a superior court may enter preservation orders while a capital case is on automatic appeal, and if so, whether the preservation order must be limited to materials potentially discoverable under Penal Code § 1054.9.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the superior court has jurisdiction to enter evidence-preservation orders while a death judgment is on automatic appeal | Preservation orders are necessary to protect the movant’s ability to obtain postconviction discovery under Penal Code § 1054.9 once habeas counsel is appointed; trial court has inherent power to preserve evidence under Code Civ. Proc. § 187 | Trial court lacks jurisdiction while the judgment is on appeal (Code Civ. Proc. § 916); discovery/preservation is ancillary and there is no pending proceeding to which it can attach | Yes. Trial court has jurisdiction to entertain preservation motions limited to materials potentially subject to § 1054.9 discovery, using inherent powers to protect that jurisdiction |
| Whether Penal Code § 1054.9 permits anticipatory preservation orders before a habeas petition or appointment of habeas counsel | § 1054.9 authorizes postconviction discovery and, given practical delays in appointing habeas counsel, courts may order preservation to protect future § 1054.9 rights | § 1054.9 does not expressly authorize preservation orders; allowing broad anticipatory preservation would be an unauthorized fishing expedition | § 1054.9 does not expressly authorize broad anticipatory discovery, but courts may, under inherent authority and to protect § 1054.9 jurisdiction, order preservation of materials that would be potentially discoverable under § 1054.9 |
| Scope of permissible preservation orders | Preservation may extend to any materials that could be covered by § 1054.9 (materials in possession of prosecution or law enforcement involved in the investigation/prosecution) | Preservation sought here was overbroad — included non-law-enforcement entities and accounting requirements beyond § 1054.9 scope | Preservation orders must be limited to items potentially discoverable under § 1054.9; orders extending to unrelated agencies, judicial or administrative materials, or mandatory accounting exceed trial court jurisdiction |
| Effect of precedent that barred postconviction discovery before order to show cause (e.g., Gonzalez, Johnson) | Those precedents must yield to § 1054.9 and practical protections when habeas counsel is delayed; Townsel/Varian support limited ancillary actions while appeal pending | Gonzalez/Johnson bar postconviction discovery motions untethered to an ongoing proceeding; without a habeas filing there is no proceeding for discovery to attach to | Gonzalez/Johnson remain good law as to discovery beyond § 1054.9; but § 1054.9 creates a statutory postconviction discovery right, and trial courts may protect that right via limited preservation orders despite the appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Steele, 32 Cal.4th 682 (clarifies prerequisites and scope of postconviction discovery under Penal Code § 1054.9)
- People v. Gonzalez, 51 Cal.3d 1179 (explains discovery motions are ancillary and generally cannot proceed after judgment is final and no related proceeding is pending)
- People v. Johnson, 3 Cal.4th 1183 (characterizes preservation motions as anticipatory postjudgment discovery and addresses scope)
- Townsel v. Superior Court, 20 Cal.4th 1084 (trial court may issue ancillary orders during automatic appeal when they do not affect the judgment on appeal)
- People v. Superior Court (Pearson), 48 Cal.4th 564 (habeas corpus is a separate matter; § 1054.9 discovery is part of habeas prosecution)
- In re Morgan, 50 Cal.4th 932 (recognized limited procedural adaptations to avoid depriving condemned inmates of rights when habeas counsel appointment is delayed)