This case, however, involves a slight twist. The Court of Appeal here reversed the defendant's conviction and remanded the case for a new trial, the Attorney General promptly petitioned the California Supreme Court for review, and in the meantime, although the remittitur of the Court of Appeal's opinion had not yet issued, the defendant then filed a motion for bail on appeal.
Does the trial court have jurisdiction to hear that motion?
The trial court thought it didn't, and on that basis, denied the motion. Defendant then filed a writ, saying the trial court was wrong.
On appeal, the Attorney General's office conceded error (notwithstanding the contrary view expressed below), and today, the Court of Appeal agrees. Just like a trial court has the power to entertain a bail motion pending appeal, the trial court also has the power to entertain a bail motion while the case is still technically on appeal because an opinion has been rendered, and the conviction reversed and remanded for retrial, but review was sought and the remittitur has not yet issued.
Makes total sense.
One final point. The defendant here is Dana Stubblefield. That name may perhaps sound familiar. The opinion nowhere mentions it, but he's a longtime -- quite famous -- player in the NFL, and he played for (amongst others) the 49ers and Raiders. Convicted of forcible rape, and currently facing a retrial.
One more point, actually. I was VERY surprised at the end of the opinion to see that Mr. Stubblefield had an appointed attorney for his (successful) writ petition. My guess is that the guy made at least $50 million during his decade-plus NFL career. Plus endorsements etc. Yet still ostensibly qualifies as indigent.
Not what I expected at all.
