Can a judge or magistrate consider evidence from a grand jury hearing that was stipulated to by the district attorney's acceptance of a statement in a motion?

In their petition the People urge that we either consider the evidence from the grand jury hearing because it was in fact stipulated to by the district attorney's acceptance of the statement in defendant's motion, or that we remand the proceedings for further hearing. ¹ Subdivision (c) of section 1538.5 of the Penal Code provides: "Whenever a search or seizure motion is made in the municipal, justice or superior court as provided in this section, the judge or magistrate shall receive evidence on any issue of fact necessary to determine the motion." In Thompson v. Superior Court (1968) 262 Cal.App.2d 98, 68 Cal.Rptr. 530, the court discharged an alternative writ and denied a petition under subdivision (i), for lack of a proper record. The court stated: "It also seems clear that the judge who hears the motion 'shall receive evidence on any issue of fact necessary to determine the motion' (subd. (c)), including, of course, the transcript of the preliminary hearing." (262 Cal.App.2d at p. 103, 68 Cal.Rptr. at p. 533.) The foregoing language it later qualified as follows: "The petition alleges that pursuant to the stipulation of the parties the motion was 'heard and determined upon the basis of the preliminary examination transcript.' To have any validity, such an oral stipulation must be entered in the minutes of the court or must at least be reflected in the transcript of the proceeding. (Citation.) No such stipulation is entered in the minutes of the court." (Id., p. 105, 68 Cal.Rptr. at p. 534.)