Davis v. Superior Court, B216345, concerned a defendant's petition for a writ of mandate challenging the trial court's denial of his motion to obtain the name of the informant and percipient witness in the prosecution for attempted murder. In granting the petition, the court held that, although the disclosure of the confidential informant's identity is not mandatory simply because the informant was also a percipient witness, an in camera hearing should be held.
People v. Meyer, C061857, concerned a challenge to the trial court's denial of defendant's motion to attend traffic school in lieu of entry of judgment on the violation following a plea of no contest to the infraction of speeding. In affirming, the court held that a person who held a commercial driver's license at the time of violation of a traffic offense, but who surrendered the license, is barred from completing traffic school in lieu of adjudicating the traffic offense pursuant to Vehicle Code section 42005(c), nothwithstanding that the section refers to the present tense "holds a...commercial...license...".
Weinkauf v. Florez, A127069, concerned an administrator's complaint seeking to invalidate certain deeds to certain family members of the defendant, with whom the decedent had a fiduciary relationship. In affirming the trial court's judgment in favor of the administrator, the court held that defendant has failed to establish that the administrator's action to invalidate the deeds was time-barred, as the unambiguous statutory language allows a party to bring an action within three years of when he "discovered, or reasonably should have discovered, the facts material to" the transfers.
People v. Anderson, S170778 concerned a challenge to the trial court's order requiring defendant to pay restitution directly to the hospital for the victim's final expenses in a prosecution of defendant for leaving the scene of an accident resulting in death. In affirming the restitution order, the court held that under the particular and narrow circumstances of this case, the trial court did not abuse its discretion under 1203.1 by ordering the defendant pay restitution directly to the hospital.
In Galindo v. Superior Court, S170550, following a charge by felony complaint with threatening and resisting an arresting officer, the court rules that a magistrate's denial of defendant's Pitchess motion was not erroneous as, although a defendant may file a Pitchess motion before a preliminary hearing, the pendency of that motion will not necessarily or invariably constitute good cause for postponing the preliminary hearing over the prosecution's objection.