Reset A A Font size: Print

District Court of Appeal, Fifth District, California.

The PEOPLE of the State of California, Petitioner, v. The SUPERIOR COURT of the State of California, IN AND FOR the COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, Respondent, Walter R. HALE, Real Party in Interest.

Civ. 451.

Decided: February 05, 1965

Stanley Mosk and Thomas C. Lynch, Attys. Gen., Doris H. Maier, Asst. Atty. Gen., Raymond M. Momboisse, Deputy Atty. Gen., Sacramento, for petitioner. Adon V. Panattoni and Floyd V. Gibbert, Sacramento, for real party in interest.

As stated in the opinion in People of State of California v. Hale, Cal.App., 42 Cal.Rptr. 533* , the argument on this petition for a writ of mandate was heard by order of the court and with the consent of counsel, at the same time as the motion to dismiss the appeal in the Hale case and the argument on the merits of that case.

The Hale case, decided today, logically disposes of the petition. The essential basis of the present claim is that the trial court lacked jurisdiction in the Hale case to make an order sustaining the objection to the accusation, under sections 3065 and 3066 of the Government Code, on the ground that the grand jury had no evidence whatsoever upon which to base such a charge. In view of the fact that we there hold that the trial court had jurisdiction to rule as it did, the contention here advanced by the Attorney General completely fails.

The petition for a writ of mandate, or ‘other appropriate relief,’ is, therefore, denied.


FOOTNOTE.  Advance Report Citation: —— A.C.A. ——.

CONLEY, Presiding Justice.

STONE, Justice, concurs that a Writ of Mandate does not lie. R. M. BROWN, Justice, concurs. Hearing denied; TRAYNOR and TOBRINER, JJ., dissenting.

Copied to clipboard