Defendant sought review from Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), which convicted him of first degree murder and imposed a sentence of life imprisonment. Defendant filed a petition for habeas corpus. The court issued an order to show cause and appointed a referee to take evidence and make findings of fact. The referee recommended that the petition for habeas corpus be granted.
Defendant was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. Defendant filed a petition for habeas corpus, and the court issued an order to show cause and appointed a referee to take evidence and make findings of fact. The referee recommended that the petition for habeas corpus be granted. ADA attorney Los Angeles The court held that there was substantial evidence to support the referee’s findings. The court agreed with the referee that the witnesses’ recantations should be credited. The court held that, once defendant raised doubt about his guilt by presenting newly discovered evidence, he could introduce any evidence not presented to the trial court and which was not merely cumulative in relation to evidence which was presented at trial. The court held that defendant’s counsel was inadequate because he failed to object to the suggestive pretrial identification of defendant. The court granted the petition for habeas corpus and vacated the judgment of the trial court. The court released defendant on his own recognizance and ordered that it remain in effect until the trial court determined the final disposition.
The court granted defendant’s petition for habeas corpus and vacated the judgment of the trial court, which convicted defendant of first degree murder. The court held that defendant had raised doubt about his guilt by presenting newly discovered evidence and that he could then introduce any evidence not presented to trial court. The court held that defendant’s counsel was inadequate in failing to object to the suggestive pretrial identification.
Respondent was ordered to show cause whether, and under what circumstances, ineffective assistance of counsel might have explained or excused delay in presentation of petitioner’s claim on habeas corpus, whether petitioner’s appointed counsel rendered ineffective assistance as to any claim set forth in petition, and whether any claim stated a prima facie cause for relief on the merits.
Petitioner was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to death. After the superior court authorized petitioner’s execution, petitioner successfully moved in federal court for a stay of proceedings and appointment of new counsel. New counsel filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus with the court. The court held the petition was not entitled to a presumption of timeliness because the petition was not filed within 90 days after the final due date for filing appellant’s reply brief on direct appeal, and issued an order for respondent to show cause and explain the delay in presenting the petition. The court held that petitioner’s appointed counsel, after learning of facts that indicated issues of potential merit existed in petitioner’s case, and that additional funding was required, effectively abandoned petitioner by failing to conduct a further investigation as to those potentially meritorious claims, and failing to seek additional funding. Such abandonment constituted good cause excusing the substantial delay in filing for a writ of habeas corpus. None of petitioner’s claims, therefore, were denied as untimely, and the order to show cause was discharged.
Order to show cause discharged where petitioner’s counsel’s abandonment of petitioner constituted good cause for petitioner’s delay in filing for a writ of habeas corpus.
