You have no items in your shopping cart.
Search
Filters

Appeals and Writs in Criminal Cases

Distinguished experts cover all aspects, including federal, to make appellate and writ review clear and increase your chances of success.

Distinguished experts cover all aspects of seeking higher relief in criminal cases, including how to handle a criminal appeal, how to prepare, and procedures that must be followed in:

  • Direct appeals in California criminal cases
  • Writs of mandate, prohibition, habeas corpus, coram nobis, and coram vobis in California state courts
  • Habeas corpus review in federal district court and the 9th Circuit
  • Petitions to the California and U.S. Supreme Courts
  • Plus, all relevant, amended, and newly enacted Rules of Court
Print CR33660

3d edition, 2 looseleaf volumes, updated 6/19

 

If you are signed in and a new attorney, your adjusted cost appears below.

$ 425.00
Add Forms CD to Print CR23663
$ 99.00

Distinguished experts cover all aspects of seeking higher relief in criminal cases, including how to handle a criminal appeal, how to prepare, and procedures that must be followed in:

  • Direct appeals in California criminal cases
  • Writs of mandate, prohibition, habeas corpus, coram nobis, and coram vobis in California state courts
  • Habeas corpus review in federal district court and the 9th Circuit
  • Petitions to the California and U.S. Supreme Courts
  • Plus, all relevant, amended, and newly enacted Rules of Court

1

Appellate Review of Criminal Convictions

Amy HaddixBridget Billeter

  • I.  RIGHT TO APPEAL
    • A.  Source of Right  1.1
    • B.  Purposes of Appeal  1.2
    • C.  Defendant’s Right to Notice  1.3
  • II.  APPEALABLE JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS
    • A.  Questions Appealable by Prosecution and Defense  1.4
    • B.  Defendant’s Appeals
      • 1.  Felony Cases
        • a.  After Plea of Not Guilty
          • (1)  In General  1.5
          • (2)  Final Judgment of Conviction  1.6
          • (3)  Postjudgment Orders  1.7
          • (4)  Sentence  1.8
          • (5)  Probation Orders  1.9
          • (6)  Commitment Orders  1.10
        • b.  After Plea of Guilty or Nolo Contendere
          • (1)  Scope of Appellate Review  1.11
          • (2)  Certificate of Probable Cause Requirement  1.12
          • (3)  Issues That Require Certificate of Probable Cause  1.13
          • (4)  Issues Appealable Without Certificate of Probable Cause  1.14
          • (5)  Waiver of Right to Appeal  1.15
      • 2.  Misdemeanor and Infraction Cases
        • a.  In General  1.16
        • b.  Pretrial  1.17
        • c.  Posttrial  1.18
    • C.  Prosecution Appeals
      • 1.  Felony Cases
        • a.  Scope of Appeal  1.19
        • b.  Order Setting Aside Indictment or Information  1.20
        • c.  Order Sustaining Demurrer  1.21
        • d.  Order Granting New Trial  1.22
        • e.  Order Arresting Judgment  1.23
        • f.  Postjudgment Order Affecting Substantial Rights of Prosecution  1.24
        • g.  Order Modifying Verdict or Finding  1.25
        • h.  Pretrial Order of Dismissal as a Result of Suppression of Evidence  1.26
        • i.  Order of Dismissal  1.27
        • j.  Order Denying Prosecution’s Motion to Reinstate Complaint  1.28
        • k.  Imposition of Unlawful Sentence  1.29
        • l.  Order Granting Probation  1.29A
        • m.  Order Granting Habeas Corpus Relief  1.30
      • 2.  Misdemeanor and Infraction Cases  1.31
        • a.  Probation Order  1.32
        • b.  Order of Dismissal  1.33
  • III.  APPELLATE AND WRIT JURISDICTION OF CALIFORNIA COURTS
    • A.  Appeal of Right
      • 1.  Supreme Court  1.34
      • 2.  Court of Appeal  1.35
      • 3.  Appellate Division of the Superior Court  1.36
    • B.  Discretionary Review
      • 1.  Supreme Court  1.37
      • 2.  Court of Appeal  1.38
    • C.  Writ Jurisdiction  1.39
    • D.  Appellate Court Jurisdiction  1.40
  • IV.  FEDERAL REVIEW OF STATE COURT CONVICTIONS: NONCAPITAL CASES  1.41

2

The Right to Counsel on Appeal; Implementation in California

Stephen Greenberg

  • I.  CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO COUNSEL ON APPEAL
    • A.  Indigent Defendant’s Right to Appointment of Counsel on Appeal  2.1
    • B.  Defendant’s Right to Effective Assistance of Counsel on Appeal  2.2
  • II.  ROLE OF TRIAL COUNSEL IN APPELLATE PROCESS
    • A.  Trial Counsel Should Not Represent Defendant in Appellate Court
      • 1.  Different Skills Required  2.3
      • 2.  Inherent Conflict of Interest  2.4
    • B.  Duty of Trial Counsel to Advise Client of Rights and Perfect Appeal
      • 1.  Duty to Advise Convicted Client  2.5
      • 2.  Duty to Assist Defendant in Perfecting Appeal
        • a.  Duty to File Notice of Appeal  2.6
          • (1)  Felony Appeals
            • (a)  Appeals After Trial  2.7
            • (b)  After Guilty or No Contest Plea  2.8
          • (2)  Misdemeanor Appeals  2.9
          • (3)  Juvenile Appeals  2.10
        • b.  Additional Duties for Indigent Clients  2.11
      • 3.  Application for Bail on Appeal
        • a.  Appropriate Case  2.12
        • b.  Criteria for Granting
          • (1)  Felony Appeals  2.13
          • (2)  Misdemeanor Appeals  2.14
      • 4.  Application for Stay of Execution of Judgment  2.15
        • a.  Criteria for Granting  2.16
        • b.  Effect of Stay  2.17
  • III.  PRIVATELY RETAINED COUNSEL
    • A.  Referral  2.18
    • B.  Setting Fees  2.19
    • C.  Written Representation Agreement  2.20
  • IV.  COURT-APPOINTED COUNSEL
    • A.  Felonies Punishable by Imprisonment
      • 1.  Appointment and Selection  2.21
      • 2.  Supervision  2.22
      • 3.  Fee Recommendations  2.23
    • B.  Misdemeanors and Infractions  2.24
  • V.  DUTIES OF APPELLATE COUNSEL
    • A.  Duty to Raise All Arguable Issues  2.25
    • B.  Duty When Appellate Counsel Finds No Arguable Issues
      • 1.  Appointed Counsel  2.26
      • 2.  Private Counsel  2.27
    • C.  Duty When There May Be an Adverse Consequence  2.28
    • D.  Duty When Showing of Error or Prejudice Depends on Facts Outside Record  2.29
    • E.  Duty to Communicate With Client  2.30
  • VI.  FORMS
    • A.  Form: Notice of Appeal—Felony (Defendant) (Judicial Council Form CR-120)  2.31
    • B.  Form: Notice of Appeal (Misdemeanor) (Judicial Council Form CR-132)  2.32
    • C.  Form: Application for Certificate of Probable Cause  2.33
    • D.  Form: Declaration in Support of Certificate of Probable Cause  2.34
    • E.  Form: Certificate of Probable Cause  2.35
    • F.  Form: Motion for Appointment of Counsel on Appeal  2.36
    • G.  Form: Application for Bail on Appeal—Trial Court  2.37
    • H.  Form: Application for Stay of Execution (and Bail)—Trial Court  2.38
    • I.  Form: Wende Brief  2.39
    • J.  Form: Abandonment of Appeal  2.40

3

Procedural Aspects of Appellate Representation

Charles M. Bonneau, Jr.

  • I.  RECORD ON APPEAL
    • A.  Record in Appeals to the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court  3.1
      • 1.  Normal Record on Appeal
        • a.  From Judgment of Conviction or Order Granting New Trial  3.2
        • b.  From Other Orders  3.3
        • c.  Confidential Proceedings; Sealed Records  3.4
        • d.  Preparation, Certification, and Filing  3.5
      • 2.  Obtaining a Complete Record  3.6
        • a.  Obtaining Items Omitted From Normal Record  3.7
        • b.  Augmenting the Record  3.8
        • c.  Bringing Exhibits to the Attention of the Court  3.9
        • d.  Settling the Record  3.10
          • (1)  Rules of Court  3.11
          • (2)  Preliminary Steps  3.12
          • (3)  Filing the Application  3.13
      • 3.  Appeal on Agreed Statement  3.14
      • 4.  Correction of the Record  3.14A
    • B.  Appeals to Appellate Division of the Superior Court
      • 1.  Contents of Record
        • a.  Normal Record  3.15
        • b.  Verbatim Record of Oral Proceedings: Reporter’s Transcripts or Official Electronic Recording  3.16
        • c.  Statement on Appeal  3.17
        • d.  Settlement and Certification of Statement on Appeal  3.18
      • 2.  Preparation and Transmission of Record on Appeal  3.19
      • 3.  Augmenting the Record  3.20
  • II.  BRIEFS
    • A.  Appeals in the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court
      • 1.  Required Briefs: Appellant’s Opening Brief, Respondent’s Brief  3.21
      • 2.  Permitted Briefs
        • a.  Appellant’s Reply Brief  3.22
        • b.  Supplemental Brief  3.23
        • c.  Amicus Curiae Briefs  3.24
      • 3.  Extension of Time to File Brief  3.25
      • 4.  Form and Format Requirements for Briefs
        • a.  Format  3.26
        • b.  Length  3.27
        • c.  Covers  3.28
        • d.  Contents
          • (1)  Headings and Tables  3.29
          • (2)  Citations to the Record  3.30
          • (3)  Statement of the Case  3.31
          • (4)  Statement of Appealability  3.32
          • (5)  Statement of Facts  3.33
          • (6)  Questions on Appeal  3.34
          • (7)  Summary of Argument  3.35
          • (8)  Argument  3.36
            • (a)  Section Headings  3.37
            • (b)  Citation of Authorities  3.38
          • (9)  Conclusion  3.39
          • (10)  Attachments  3.40
      • 5.  Service and Filing of Briefs  3.41
      • 6.   Electronic Filing and Service  3.41A
      • 7.  Noncomplying Briefs  3.42
    • B.  Appeals in Misdemeanor and Infraction Cases
      • 1.  In the Appellate Division of the Superior Court
        • a.  Briefs Permitted or Required  3.43
        • b.  Form and Content Requirements  3.44
      • 2.  In Cases Transferred to Court of Appeal  3.45
  • III.  FORMS
    • A.  Form: Sample Letter Notifying Superior Court Clerk of Omissions From Appellate Record  3.46
    • B.  Form: Motion to Augment Record on Appeal  3.47
    • C.  Form: Application for Permission to Prepare Settled Statement  3.48
    • D.  Form: Order Granting Application to Prepare Settled Statement [Deleted]  3.49
    • E.  Form: Sample Proposed Statement on Appeal  3.50
    • F.  Form: Application for Extension of Time  3.51
    • G.  Form: Notice Regarding Record on Appeal (Misdemeanor) (CR-134)  3.52
    • H.  Form: Proposed Statement on Appeal (Misdemeanor) (CR-135)  3.53
    • I.  Form: Order Concerning Appellant’s Proposed Statement on Appeal (Misdemeanor) (CR-136)  3.54

4

Handling a Criminal Appeal

George Schraer

  • I.  STEPS TO TAKE BEFORE OBTAINING RECORD  4.1
  • II.  ASCERTAINING THE FACTUAL AND LEGAL BASIS FOR APPEAL
    • A.  Reviewing the Record  4.2
    • B.  Reviewing the Trial Court File  4.3
    • C.  Discussing Case With Trial Counsel  4.4
    • D.  Finding Arguable Issues  4.5
      • 1.  Regularity of Proceedings  4.6
      • 2.  Interrogation, Confessions, and Admissions  4.7
      • 3.  Search and Seizure  4.8
      • 4.  Identification Procedures  4.9
      • 5.  Right to Counsel  4.10
      • 6.  Joinder of Defendants or Counts  4.11
      • 7.  Issues Involving the Statute Defining the Charged Offense  4.12
      • 8.  Issues Involving Defendant’s Mental Condition  4.13
      • 9.  Right to Jury Trial  4.14
      • 10.  Trial Questions  4.15
        • a.  Errors in Admission or Exclusion of Evidence  4.16
        • b.  Instructional Error  4.17
        • c.  Prosecutorial Misconduct  4.18
        • d.  Judicial Misconduct  4.19
      • 11.  Punishment  4.20
  • III.  BASIC PRINCIPLES OF APPELLATE REVIEW
    • A.  Introduction  4.21
    • B.  Standards of Review
      • 1.  Findings of Fact  4.22
      • 2.  Questions of Law  4.23
      • 3.  Mixed Questions of Law and Fact  4.24
      • 4.  Discretionary Rulings  4.25
    • C.  Procedural Obstacles to Review
      • 1.  Failure to Object
        • a.  Rationale  4.26
        • b.  Exceptions  4.27
        • c.  Forfeiture  4.28
      • 2.  Invited Error  4.29
    • D.  Rules for Determining Whether Error Requires Reversal
      • 1.  Errors Reversible Per Se  4.30
      • 2.  Errors of Federal Constitutional Law  4.31
      • 3.  Errors of State Law  4.32
  • IV.  OVERCOMING OBSTACLES TO REVIEW OR REVERSAL
    • A.  Arguing Against Forfeiture  4.33
    • B.  Arguing Ineffective Assistance of Trial Counsel  4.34
    • C.  Requesting the Court to Take Judicial Notice  4.35
    • D.  Federalizing Issues  4.36
  • V.  KEEPING UP WITH CHANGES IN THE LAW  4.37
    • A.  Retroactivity  4.38
    • B.  Resources  4.39
  • VI.  PREPARING BRIEFS
    • A.  General Drafting Principles  4.40
    • B.  Statement of Facts  4.41
    • C.  Argument
      • 1.  Exhaustiveness and Supplementation  4.42
      • 2.  Organization  4.43
      • 3.  Use of Authority  4.44
  • VII.  FORMS
    • A.  Form: General Information About Criminal Appeals  4.45
    • B.  Form: Application to Reviewing Court for Release Pending Appeal  4.46
    • C.  Form: Application to Reviewing Court for Stay of Execution  4.47
    • D.  Form: Motion for Judicial Notice  4.48
    • E.  Form: Application to Expand Appointment  4.49

5

Hearing and Determination of Appeal

George Schraer

  • I.  ORAL ARGUMENT
    • A.  In the Court of Appeal
      • 1.  Judicial Conferencing and Tentative Opinions  5.1
      • 2.  Procedures  5.2
      • 3.  Obtaining Trial Exhibits for Use at Argument  5.3
      • 4.  Argument and Waiver  5.4
      • 5.  Telephonic and Video Oral Arguments  5.5
      • 6.  Oral Presentation Guidelines  5.6
      • 7.  Submission of Case for Decision  5.7
    • B.  In the Appellate Division of the Superior Court  5.7A
  • II.  DETERMINATION OF APPEAL
    • A.  Opinions in the Court of Appeal
      • 1.  In General
        • a.  Opinion Must Address Every Issue Raised in Brief  5.8
        • b.  Opinion May Be Based on Unbriefed Issue  5.9
      • 2.  Unpublished Opinions
        • a.  Majority of Criminal Appeals Unpublished  5.10
        • b.  Citation of Unpublished Opinions  5.11
      • 3.  Superseded Opinions  5.12
      • 4.  Publication
        • a.  Standards for Publication  5.13
        • b.  Publication Procedure  5.14
        • c.  Requesting Publication or Depublication  5.15
    • B.  Disposition of Case
      • 1.  Dismissal
        • a.  Grounds for Dismissal
          • (1)  Irregularities in Proceedings  5.16
          • (2)  Escape of Defendant  5.17
          • (3)  Death of Defendant  5.18
          • (4)  Mootness  5.19
          • (5)  Voluntary Dismissal by Defendant  5.20
        • b.  Motion to Dismiss  5.21
      • 2.  Disposition on the Merits  5.22
        • a.  Affirmance  5.23
        • b.  Reversal
          • (1)  Retrial Permitted  5.24
            • (a)  Double Jeopardy Considerations  5.25
            • (b)  Bail After Decision  5.26
          • (2)  Retrial Barred by Double Jeopardy Clause
            • (a)  Insufficiency of Evidence  5.27
            • (b)  Implied Acquittal  5.28
            • (c)  Discharge of Defendant  5.29
        • c.  Reduction in Degree of Offense (Noncapital Cases)  5.30
        • d.  Remand With Directions  5.31
        • e.  Summary Reversal  5.32
  • III.  FINALITY OF DECISIONS
    • A.  In the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal
      • 1.  Date of Finality  5.33
      • 2.  Remittitur  5.34
        • a.  Issuance  5.35
        • b.  Transmission  5.36
        • c.  Grounds for Recall  5.37
    • B.  In the Appellate Division of the Superior Court  5.38
  • IV.  PETITION FOR REHEARING
    • A.  In Supreme Court and Court of Appeal  5.39
    • B.  In Appellate Division of the Superior Court  5.40
  • V.  PETITION FOR REVIEW IN THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT
    • A.  Grounds for Review  5.41
    • B.  Factors to Consider in Deciding Whether to Seek Review  5.42
    • C.  Procedural Rules
      • 1.  Petition  5.43
      • 2.  Petition for Review to Exhaust State Remedies  5.44
      • 3.  Answer and Reply  5.45
      • 4.  Ordering Review  5.46
    • D.  Determination of Petition  5.47
    • E.  Briefs on the Merits  5.48
    • F.  Oral Argument  5.49
    • G.  Opinion  5.50
  • VI.  DUTIES OF APPELLATE COUNSEL AFTER TERMINATION OF APPEAL  5.51
  • VII.  FORMS
    • A.  Form: Transmission of Exhibits  5.52
    • B.  Form: Petition for Rehearing  5.53
    • C.  Form: Petition for Review  5.54

6

Postconviction Review in Death Penalty Cases

Clifford Gardner

Therene Powell

  • I.  INTRODUCTION
    • A.  Scope of Chapter  6.1
    • B.  Differences Between Capital Appeals and Noncapital Appeals  6.2
  • II.  AUTOMATIC APPEAL AND STAY OF EXECUTION  6.3
  • III.  APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL FOR AUTOMATIC APPEAL AND HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDINGS
    • A.  Right to Appointed Counsel  6.4
    • B.  Appointment of State Public Defender  6.5
    • C.  Appointment of Private Counsel
      • 1.  Appellate Counsel  6.6
      • 2.  Habeas Corpus Counsel  6.7
    • D.  Criteria for Appointment of Counsel in Capital Appeals and Habeas Corpus Proceedings  6.8
      • 1.  Qualifications for Appointment of Appellate Counsel  6.9
      • 2.  Qualifications for Appointment as Habeas Corpus Counsel  6.10
      • 3.  Alternate Qualifications  6.11
      • 4.  Use of Supervised Counsel  6.12
      • 5.  Dual Appointment  6.13
    • E.  Withdrawal of Counsel  6.14
    • F.  Compensation of Counsel  6.15
    • G.  No Right to Self-Representation  6.16
  • IV.  RESOURCES
    • A.  California Appellate Project  6.17
    • B.  California Habeas Corpus Resource Center  6.18
    • C.  Other Resources  6.19
  • V.  RESPONSIBILITIES OF COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS SENTENCED TO DEATH
    • A.  General Duties and Supreme Court Standards
      • 1.  Ongoing Duties of Trial Counsel  6.20
      • 2.  Duties of Appellate Counsel  6.21
      • 3.  Duties of Habeas Corpus Counsel
        • a.  Scope of Representation  6.22
        • b.  Importance of Meeting Timeliness Standards  6.23
      • 4.  Duty of All Postconviction Counsel to Cooperate With Assisting Organization or Attorney  6.24
      • 5.  Duty to Determine Defendant’s Citizenship Status  6.25
    • B.  Certification of the Record for Completeness and Accuracy  6.26
      • 1.  Duties of Trial Counsel  6.27
      • 2.  Duties of Appellate Counsel  6.28
    • C.  Timeline of Specific Tasks for Postconviction Counsel  6.29
      • 1.  Before Certification of the Record for Accuracy
        • a.  Appellate Counsel  6.30
        • b.  Habeas Corpus Counsel  6.31
      • 2.  Before Appellant’s Opening Brief Is Filed
        • a.  Appellate Counsel  6.32
        • b.  Habeas Corpus Counsel  6.33
      • 3.  Before the Reply Brief Is Filed
        • a.  Appellate Counsel  6.34
        • b.  Habeas Corpus Counsel  6.35
      • 4.  Between the Reply Brief and Decision
        • a.  Habeas Corpus Counsel
          • (1)  Filing the Habeas Corpus Petition  6.36
          • (2)  Informal Briefing on Habeas Corpus Petition  6.37
          • (3)  Order to Show Cause  6.38
        • b.  Appellate Counsel  6.39
      • 5.  After Decision
        • a.  Petition for Rehearing  6.40
        • b.  Petition for Writ of Certiorari  6.41
      • 6.  After Conclusion of Federal Postconviction Proceedings  6.42
  • VI.  SUPREME COURT POLICIES AND PROCEDURES TO ENSURE TIMELINESS IN CAPITAL CASES
    • A.  Status Reports  6.43
    • B.  Extensions of Time  6.44
    • C.  Sanctions  6.45
  • VII.  DRAFTING APPELLANT’S OPENING BRIEF
    • A.  Length  6.46
    • B.  Organization  6.47
    • C.  Briefing Previously Rejected Issues  6.48
    • D.  Statement of the Case and Statement of Facts  6.49
    • E.  Argument
      • 1.  Identifying Issues  6.50
      • 2.  Drafting the Arguments  6.51
      • 3.  Arguing Prejudice  6.52
  • VIII.  ORAL ARGUMENT  6.53
  • IX.  ISSUES UNIQUE TO CAPITAL CASES
    • A.  The Eighth Amendment  6.54
      • 1.  Uniformity (Non-Arbitrariness)  6.55
      • 2.  Individualization  6.56
      • 3.  Proportionality  6.57
      • 4.  Reliability  6.58
    • B.  Jury Selection  6.59
    • C.  Due Process at Sentencing  6.60
    • D.  Automatic Motion to Modify the Penalty  6.61
    • E.  Method of Execution  6.62

7

Writs of Mandate and Prohibition Defined

Susan Horst

James A. Lassart

  • I.  OVERVIEW OF WRITS IN CRIMINAL CASES  7.1
  • II.  JURISDICTION OF COURTS TO CONSIDER WRIT PETITIONS  7.2
  • III.  MANDATE AND PROHIBITION COMPARED
    • A.  Difference in Function  7.3
    • B.  Mislabeling of Writ Will Not Cause Denial of Relief  7.4
    • C.  Concurrent Use of Mandate and Prohibition  7.5
    • D.  Either Writ May Be Proper When Challenging Speedy Trial Violations  7.6
  • IV.  STATUTES AND RULES OF COURT AUTHORIZING REVIEW BY PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE OR PROHIBITION  7.7
  • V.  PREREQUISITES TO RELIEF BY WRIT OF MANDATE OR PROHIBITION
    • A.  Appellate Remedy Inadequate  7.8
      • 1.  Defendant’s Appellate Remedy Inadequate  7.9
      • 2.  Prosecution’s Appellate Remedies Inadequate  7.10
    • B.  Petitioner Must Be Beneficially Interested  7.11
    • C.  Petitioner Must Perfect or Exhaust Lower Court Remedies  7.12
    • D.  Petition Must Be Timely
      • 1.  Petitioner Must Comply With Applicable Statutory and Rule of Court Time Limits  7.13
      • 2.  Petitioner Must Exercise Diligence in Seeking Relief  7.14
      • 3.  Mootness  7.15
  • VI.  WRIT OF MANDATE: SPECIFIC USES
    • A.  Overview  7.16
    • B.  Pretrial Uses
      • 1.  Discovery  7.17
      • 2.  Denial of Speedy Trial Rights  7.18
      • 3.  Ruling on Pen C §1538.5 Motion to Suppress Evidence
        • a.  Availability in Felony Cases  7.19
        • b.  Availability in Misdemeanor Cases  7.20
        • c.  Substantial Evidence Standard [Deleted]  7.21
        • d.  Time Limitations for Pretrial Relief: Pen C §§1538.5, 1510  7.22
        • e.  Mandate Not Available to Challenge Pretrial Rulings on Admissibility of Evidence Not Involving Unlawful Search or Seizure  7.23
      • 4.  Denial of Motion to Disqualify Judge  7.24
      • 5.  Erroneous Orders Under Pen C §995a(b)  7.25
      • 6.  Change of Venue  7.26
      • 7.  Other Pretrial Issues  7.27
    • C.  Sentencing and Related Postconviction Problems  7.28
    • D.  Perfecting Right of Appeal  7.29
    • E.  Declaration of Rights (Class Action Relief)  7.30
    • F.  Collateral Matters  7.31
  • VII.  WRIT OF PROHIBITION: SPECIFIC USES  7.32
    • A.  Overview  7.33
    • B.  Common Uses of Prohibition
      • 1.  Challenge to Denial of Pen C §995 Motion  7.34
        • a.  Time Limitations for Pretrial Relief: Pen C §§999a, 1510  7.35
        • b.  When §995 Motion Is Based on Illegal Commitment or Denial of Substantial Right  7.36
        • c.  Determining When Motion Has Been Made for Purposes of Pen C §1510  7.37
        • d.  Time Limitations on Nonstatutory Motion to Dismiss for Errors Committed During Preliminary Hearing Not Appearing on Face of Transcript  7.38
        • e.  Review of Pen C §871.5 Ruling  7.39
      • 2.  Other Uses of Prohibition
        • a.  Pre-Preliminary Hearing Issues  7.40
        • b.  Double Jeopardy  7.41
        • c.  Multiple Prosecution  7.42
        • d.  Statute Unconstitutional; Offense Is Not Crime  7.43
      • 3.  Miscellaneous Uses  7.44

8

Preparing and Opposing Petitions for Mandate or Prohibition

Adrian G. Driscoll

  • I.  GOVERNING RULES  8.1
  • II.  GENERAL GUIDELINES FOR DRAFTING THE PETITION  8.2
  • III.  NO FILING FEE REQUIRED  8.3
  • IV.  REQUESTING A STAY OF LOWER COURT PROCEEDINGS  8.4
  • V.  WHERE TO FILE
    • A.  General Rule  8.5
    • B.  Original Filing in Supreme Court  8.6
  • VI.  FORMAT OF PETITION
    • A.  Cover or Title Page
      • 1.  Court of Appeal and Supreme Court  8.7
      • 2.  Appellate Division  8.8
      • 3.  Superior Court  8.9
      • 4.  Form: Cover for Use in the Appellate Courts  8.10
      • 5.  Form: Title Page in the Superior Court  8.11
    • B.  Table of Contents; Table of Authorities  8.12
      • 1.  Form: Table of Contents  8.13
      • 2.  Form: Table of Authorities  8.14
    • C.  Request for Stay
      • 1.  May Be Included in Petition  8.15
      • 2.  Form: Allegation Concerning Request for Stay  8.16
    • D.  Petition  8.17
      • 1.  Form: Salutation  8.18
      • 2.  Form: Opening Paragraph  8.19
      • 3.  Introductory Allegations  8.20
        • a.  Form: Allegation Concerning Beneficial Interest of Petitioner and Capacity of Respondent and Real Party in Interest  8.21
        • b.  Form: Allegation Concerning Respondent  8.22
        • c.  Form: Allegation Concerning Venue  8.23
        • d.  Form: Prior Petitions  8.24
        • e.  Form: Allegation Explaining Why Petition Not Brought in Lower Court  8.25
        • f.  Form: Allegation Explaining Why Relief Previously Sought in Higher Court  8.26
      • 4.  Allegations Specifying Grounds for Relief
        • a.  Prima Facie Case for Relief  8.27
        • b.  Factual and Legal Basis for Claim  8.28
      • 5.  Allegation Concerning Exhaustion of Remedies  8.29
        • a.  Form: Allegation When Objection Raised Below and Rejected or Not Ruled on  8.30
        • b.  Form: Allegation When Objection Impossible or Futile  8.31
      • 6.  Allegation of Diligence  8.32
        • a.  Form: Allegation When Time for Appeal Has Expired  8.33
        • b.  Form: Allegation When Petition Challenges Nonappealable Order  8.34
      • 7.  Allegations Concerning Absence or Inadequacy of Other Remedies and Need for Relief
        • a.  Form: No Right of Appeal  8.35
        • b.  Form: Remedy on Appeal Inadequate  8.36
        • c.  Form: Allegation Concerning Need for Relief  8.37
      • 8.  Closing Matters
        • a.  Prayer  8.38
        • b.  Form: Prayer  8.39
        • c.  Form: Verification  8.40
        • d.  Certificate of Interested Entities or Persons  8.41
    • E.  Exhibits
      • 1.  Contents of Record  8.42
      • 2.  Facts Outside the Record  8.43
      • 3.  Format of Exhibits  8.44
      • 4.  Procedures When Required Record Unavailable  8.45
      • 5.  Form: Sample Request for Preparation of Transcript for Pretrial Writ Petition (Superior Court)  8.46
      • 6.  Sealing and Unsealing Documents  8.47
        • a.  Filing Records Sealed by Trial Court  8.48
        • b.  Requesting Reviewing Court to File Records Under Seal  8.49
        • c.  Findings Required to Seal Record  8.50
        • d.  Moving to Unseal Records Sealed by the Trial Court  8.51
    • F.  Memorandum of Points and Authorities  8.52
      • 1.  Form and Content
        • a.  In the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court  8.53
        • b.  In the Appellate Division of the Superior Court  8.54
      • 2.  Drafting Considerations  8.55
      • 3.  Length
        • a.  In the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court  8.56
        • b.  In the Appellate Division of the Superior Court  8.57
    • G.  Procedure
      • 1.  Filing and Service of Petition
        • a.  Filing  8.58
        • b.   Service  8.59
        • c.  Proof of Service  8.60
      • 2.  Stay of Proceedings  8.61
      • 3.  First Action on Petition
        • a.  Summary Denial
          • (1)  When Direct Appeal Available  8.62
          • (2)  When No Direct Appeal Available  8.63
        • b.  Alternative Writ or Order to Show Cause  8.64
        • c.  Peremptory Writ “In First Instance”  8.65
      • 4.  Form: Alternative Writ (Superior Court)  8.66
      • 5.  Opposing Party’s Response to Petition
        • a.  Preliminary Opposition  8.67
        • b.  Return and Opposition Brief  8.68
        • c.  Opposition to Issuance of Peremptory Writ in First Instance  8.69
        • d.  Reply  8.70
    • H.  Proceedings on Petition
      • 1.  Hearing  8.71
      • 2.  Effect of Failure to File Return  8.72
      • 3.  Right to Argument  8.73
      • 4.  Burden of Proof  8.74
      • 5.  Standard of Review  8.75
      • 6.  Superior Court: Findings; Statement of Decision  8.76
    • I.  Appellate Review of Denial of Prohibition and Mandamus Writs
      • 1.  From Order of Superior Court  8.77
      • 2.  From Order of Court of Appeal  8.78

9

Habeas Corpus: Scope of Writ

Lynda A. Romero

Kurt D. Hermansen

  • I.  OVERVIEW OF HABEAS CORPUS
    • A.  Role of Habeas Corpus Proceedings  9.1
    • B.  No Constitutional Right to Counsel  9.2
    • C.  Custody Requirement
      • 1.  Actual Custody Not Required  9.3
      • 2.  Restraint or Loss of Liberty Sufficient  9.4
      • 3.  Relief May Not Be Available if Petitioner Not in Actual or Constructive Custody When Petition Filed  9.5
      • 4.  Mootness Not Necessarily a Bar to Relief  9.6
    • D.  Statutory Procedure  9.7
    • E.  Stages of Habeas Corpus Proceedings  9.8
  • II.  EXHAUSTION AND OTHER PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS
    • A.  Significance of Procedural Rules  9.9
    • B.  Exhaustion of Appellate Remedies  9.10
      • 1.  Claim Rejected on Appeal  9.11
      • 2.  Exceptions to Dixon and Waltreus  9.12
    • C.  Second or Successive Petition  9.13
    • D.  Delay in Seeking Relief  9.14
  • III.  APPROPRIATE USES OF HABEAS CORPUS
    • A.  Bail  9.15
      • 1.  Bail on Pending Appeal of Felony Conviction  9.16
      • 2.  Bail on Pending Appeal of Misdemeanor Conviction  9.17
      • 3.  Detention Without Bail in Juvenile Proceedings  9.18
    • B.  Extradition  9.19
    • C.  Pardon; Commutation  9.20
    • D.  Contempt  9.21
    • E.  Challenging Length or Conditions of Confinement; Protecting or Declaring Rights  9.22
    • F.  Common Pretrial Uses of Habeas Corpus
      • 1.  Statute Unconstitutional; Offense Not a Crime  9.23
      • 2.  Determination of Probable Cause  9.24
      • 3.  Speedy Prosecution and Trial  9.25
    • G.  Common Postconviction Uses of Habeas Corpus
      • 1.  Absolute Defenses  9.26
      • 2.  Denial of Fundamental Rights  9.27
      • 3.  Changes in Law With Retroactive Effect  9.28
      • 4.  Invalid or Excessive Sentences  9.29
      • 5.  Invalid Orders Affecting Probation  9.30
      • 6.  Improper Parole and Probation Revocation or Denial  9.31
      • 7.  Prisoners’ Rights and Conditions of Imprisonment  9.32
      • 8.  Preservation of Rights on Appeal  9.33
      • 9.  Appellate Remedy Inadequate  9.34
      • 10.  Using Habeas Corpus in Conjunction With Appeal to Go Outside Appellate Record  9.35
        • a.  Procedure  9.36
        • b.  The Contention Cannot Be Adequately Raised on Appeal  9.37
        • c.  Claims of Inadequate Representation  9.38
      • 11.  Excess of Court’s Jurisdiction  9.39
      • 12.  Newly Discovered Evidence  9.40
      • 13.  False Evidence Was Introduced in Court or Was Material to Guilty Plea  9.41
      • 14.  Lawfulness of Civil Commitments  9.42

10

Preparing and Opposing Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

Lynda A. Romero

  • I.  CHAPTER OVERVIEW  10.1
  • II.  PREPARING AND FILING PETITION
    • A.  Pro Se Petition by Incarcerated Person  10.2
    • B.  Attorney-Drafted Petition  10.3
    • C.  Contents of Petition  10.4
  • III.  SELECTING COURT IN WHICH TO FILE PETITION
    • A.  Trial Courts and Reviewing Courts Have Habeas Corpus Jurisdiction  10.5
    • B.  Procedures in Court of Appeal and Supreme Court  10.6
    • C.  Venue  10.7
    • D.  Filing Requirements
      • 1.  In the Superior Court  10.8
      • 2.  In the Court of Appeal  10.9
      • 3.  In the Supreme Court  10.10
    • E.  Service Requirements  10.11
  • IV.  HABEAS CORPUS PROCEDURES IN SUPERIOR COURT  10.12
    • A.  Assignment to Superior Court Judge  10.13
    • B.  Informal Response  10.14
    • C.  Reply to Informal Response  10.15
    • D.  Issuance of Order to Show Cause  10.16
    • E.  Discovery  10.17
    • F.  Return to Petition  10.18
      • 1.  General Denial of Petition’s Allegations Ordinarily Insufficient  10.19
      • 2.  When Affirmative Pleading Not Required  10.20
      • 3.  Return Must Be Responsive to Allegations of Petition  10.21
    • G.  Denial (Traverse)  10.22
    • H.  Evidentiary Hearing  10.23
    • I.  Release Pending Decision  10.24
    • J.  Denial of Petition  10.25
  • V.  HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDINGS IN REVIEWING COURTS
    • A.  In Court of Appeal
      • 1.  After Denial in Superior Court  10.26
      • 2.  Filing Original Petition  10.27
      • 3.  Filing Petition in Conjunction With Appeal  10.28
      • 4.  Evidentiary Hearings  10.29
    • B.  In California Supreme Court in Non-Capital Cases  10.30
    • C.  Habeas Corpus Review in Death Penalty Cases  10.31
  • VI.  PROSECUTION’S APPEAL FROM ORDER GRANTING WRIT  10.32
  • VII.  FORMS
    • A.  Form: Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Judicial Council Form HC-001)  10.33
    • B.  Form: Sample Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus to Appellate Court  10.34
    • C.  Form: Order to Show Cause Re Writ of Habeas Corpus  10.35

11

Writs of Error Coram Nobis and Coram Vobis

Morgan Prickett

  • I.  NATURE OF WRIT  11.1
    • A.  Petitioner Must Not Be Seeking Relief That Could Be Obtained From a Statutory Remedy  11.2
    • B.  Petitioner Must Be Diligent in Presenting Petition  11.3
    • C.  Motion to Vacate Judgment Considered Writ of Coram Nobis or Coram Vobis  11.4
  • II.  USES OF WRIT
    • A.  Used After Judgment to Withdraw Guilty Plea Wrongfully Induced  11.5
    • B.  Other Uses  11.6
  • III.  LIMITATIONS ON RELIEF
    • A.  Rules  11.7
    • B.  Examples of Insufficient Allegations  11.8
  • IV.  FILING PETITION
    • A.  Procedure  11.9
    • B.  Form: Court and Cause in Trial Court  11.10
    • C.  Filing in Court of Appeal  11.11
    • D.  Pleadings—Trial Court or Appellate Court
    • E.  Form: Opening Paragraphs  11.12
      • 1.  Form: Common Facts and Grounds  11.13
      • 2.  Form: Grounds for Writ—Misrepresentation and Corroboration  11.14
      • 3.  Form: Diligence of Petitioner  11.15
      • 4.  Form: Petitioner’s Free Will Overcome  11.16
      • 5.  Form: Existence of Meritorious Defense  11.17
      • 6.  Form: Reliance on Misrepresentation  11.18
      • 7.  Form: Facts Not Appearing of Record; Reference to Accompanying Affidavits  11.19
      • 8.  Form: Exhaustion of Remedies; No Other Remedy Available  11.20
      • 9.  Form: Prayer  11.21
      • 10.  Form: Verification  11.22
    • F.  Memorandum  11.23
    • G.  Service and Filing  11.24
  • V.  HEARING AND DETERMINATION OF WRIT
    • A.  When Hearing and Counsel Not Required  11.25
    • B.  When Hearing and Counsel Required  11.26
    • C.  Burden of Proof at Hearing  11.27
    • D.  Effect of Issuance of Writ  11.28
  • VI.  REVIEW OF ORDER DENYING PETITION
    • A.  Appeal From Order  11.29
    • B.  Certificate of Probable Cause Not Required  11.30
    • C.  Right to Counsel on Appeal  11.31
    • D.  Presumptions on Appeal  11.32
    • E.  Petition for Review in California Supreme Court  11.33

12

Review in the United States Supreme Court

Neoma D. Kenwood

  • I.  SCOPE OF CHAPTER  12.1
  • II.  ATTORNEY AND PRO SE RESOURCES  12.2
  • III.  SUMMARY OF WAYS CASE CAN REACH UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT  12.3
  • IV.  WHEN UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT REVIEW SHOULD BE SOUGHT  12.4
  • V.  EFFECT OF PETITION FOR CERTIORARI ON FEDERAL HABEAS CORPUS TIME LIMITS  12.5
  • VI.  ADMISSION TO UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT BAR
    • A.  Requirement  12.6
    • B.  Qualifications and Procedure  12.7
    • C.  Admission Pro Hac Vice  12.8
  • VII.  STAYS
    • A.  Requirements for Stay  12.9
    • B.  Procedure  12.10
    • C.  Examples  12.11
    • D.  Form: Motion for Stay of Execution  12.12
  • VIII.  PROCEEDING IN FORMA PAUPERIS  12.13
    • A.  Procedure  12.14
    • B.  Denial of Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis When Petition Is “Frivolous” or “Malicious”  12.15
    • C.  Form: Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis  12.16
    • D.  Form: Affidavit or Declaration in Support of Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis  12.17
    • E.  Form: Certificate of Service  12.18
  • IX.  PETITIONING FOR CERTIORARI
    • A.  Format of Documents  12.19
    • B.  Filing  12.20
    • C.  Service  12.21
    • D.  Docketing  12.22
    • E.  Form: Declaration of Mailing  12.23
    • F.  Form: Certificate of Service  12.24
    • G.  Time to File
      • 1.  Filing Deadlines  12.25
      • 2.  Extensions of Time  12.26
    • H.  Preparation of Petition for Writ of Certiorari
      • 1.  Less Rigorous Compliance Allowed for Pro Per Petitioners  12.27
      • 2.  Summary of Contents of Petition  12.28
      • 3.  Form: Cover  12.29
      • 4.  Form: Questions Presented  12.30
      • 5.  Form: Parties to the Proceeding  12.31
      • 6.  Table of Contents  12.32
      • 7.  Table of Authorities  12.33
      • 8.  Inside Caption; Prayer for Relief  12.34
      • 9.  Opinions and Orders Below  12.35
      • 10.  Grounds for Jurisdiction  12.36
      • 11.  Form: Inside Caption, Prayer for Relief, Opinions Below, Jurisdiction (Petition for Writ of Certiorari)  12.37
      • 12.  Constitutional Provisions, Treaties, and Statutes  12.38
      • 13.  Statement of Case  12.39
      • 14.  Reasons for Granting Writ  12.40
      • 15.  Appendix  12.41
  • X.  PREPARING THE BRIEF AND ORAL ARGUMENT
    • A.  Joint Appendix  12.42
    • B.  Writing the Brief  12.43
    • C.  Oral Argument  12.44
  • XI.  PETITION FOR REHEARING  12.45
  • XII.  DECISION TO SEEK FURTHER REVIEW  12.46

13

Federal Habeas Corpus: Overview; Appointment of Counsel; Bail and Stays; Standards and Grounds for Review

Jonathan Grossman

Michael Satris

  • I.  OVERVIEW OF FEDERAL HABEAS CORPUS
    • A.  Availability of Writ  13.1
    • B.  Limitations on Use  13.2
    • C.  Exhausting State Remedies to Preserve the Right to Federal Habeas Corpus in California   13.3
    • D.  Applicable Rules of Court  13.4
    • E.  Location of Courts and Prisons by Federal Judicial District and County  13.5
    • F.  Legal Research
      • 1.  In General
        • a.  Practice Aids  13.6
        • b.  Controlling Legal Principles  13.7
      • 2.  Pro Se Legal Research
        • a.  Basic Tools  13.8
        • b.  Access to Legal Materials  13.9
  • II.  COURT-APPOINTED COUNSEL
    • A.  Right to Counsel in Noncapital Habeas Proceedings  13.10
      • 1.  Requests for Appointment of Counsel  13.11
      • 2.  Appointment  13.12
      • 3.  Compensation  13.13
    • B.  Pro Se Petitioners  13.14
    • C.  Form: Request for Appointment of Counsel  13.15
  • III.  BAIL AND STAYS
    • A.  Bail
      • 1.  Requests for Bail  13.16
      • 2.  Review of District Court’s Denial of Bail  13.17
    • B.  Stays  13.18
    • C.  Forms
      • 1.  Form: Application for Bail Pending Determination of Petition for Writ of Federal Habeas Corpus  13.19
      • 2.  Form: Declaration in Support of Application for Bail  13.20
      • 3.  Form: Proof of Service  13.21
  • IV.  FEDERAL REVIEW OF STATE COURT DECISIONS
    • A.  Highly Deferential Standard of Review  13.22
    • B.  Standard of Review for Questions of Law
      • 1.  U.S. Supreme Court Holdings Determine Federal Law  13.23
      • 2.  Contrary to Federal Law  13.24
      • 3.  Unreasonable Application of Federal Law  13.25
      • 4.  Illustrative Ninth Circuit Cases  13.26
  • V.  COMMON CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIMS  13.27
    • A.  Fifth Amendment
      • 1.  Double Jeopardy  13.28
      • 2.  Unconstitutional Confessions and Privilege Against Self-Incrimination  13.29
    • B.  Sixth Amendment
      • 1.  Right to Speedy Trial  13.30
      • 2.  Right of Confrontation  13.31
      • 3.  Right to Counsel  13.32
      • 4.  Right to Effective Assistance of Trial Counsel  13.33
      • 5.  Right to Effective Assistance of Appellate Counsel  13.34
      • 6.  Right to Self-Representation  13.35
      • 7.  Right to Call Witnesses and to Present Defense  13.36
      • 8.  Defendant’s Right to Testify  13.37
      • 9.  Right to Fair Notice of Crimes Charged  13.38
      • 10.  Right to Jury Trial  13.39
    • C.  Eighth Amendment: Disproportionate Penalty  13.40
    • D.  Due Process
      • 1.  Prosecutorial Misconduct  13.41
      • 2.  Failure to Disclose Exculpatory Evidence  13.42
      • 3.  Failure to Collect or Preserve Exculpatory Evidence  13.43
      • 4.  Impermissibly Suggestive Identification Procedures  13.44
      • 5.  Prosecutorial or Judicial Vindictiveness  13.45
      • 6.  Involuntary Guilty Plea  13.46
      • 7.  Denial of Continuance  13.47
      • 8.  Competency to Stand Trial, or Plead Guilty  13.48
      • 9.  Right to Effective Psychiatric Assistance  13.49
      • 10.  Pretrial Publicity  13.50
      • 11.  Juror Bias and Misconduct  13.51
      • 12.  Judicial Bias  13.52
      • 13.  Right to Be Present at Trial Proceedings  13.53
      • 14.  Trial in Jail Garb  13.54
      • 15.  Use of Restraints on Defendant at Trial  13.55
      • 16.  Forced Medication of Defendant During Trial  13.56
      • 17.  Jury Instructions  13.57
      • 18.  Sufficiency of Evidence  13.58
      • 19.  Sentencing  13.59
      • 20.  Use of Prior Conviction in Subsequent Proceeding  13.60
      • 21.  Failure to Provide an Adequate Record for State Appellate Review  13.61
      • 22.  Failure to Protect the Right to Appeal  13.62
      • 23.  Delay in Processing Appeal  13.63
    • E.  Vagueness and Overbreadth of Statute  13.64
    • F.  Ex Post Facto  13.65
    • G.  Equal Protection  13.66
    • H.  Lack of Jurisdiction  13.67
    • I.  Nonconviction Restraints on Liberty  13.68
    • J.  Federal Habeas Corpus Rules  13.69

14

Prerequisites to Seeking Federal Habeas Corpus Relief

Clifford Gardner

  • I.  OVERVIEW: STATUTORY PREREQUISITES TO FEDERAL HABEAS CORPUS RELIEF  14.1
  • II.  CUSTODY
    • A.  Definition  14.2
      • 1.  Situations in Which Custody Found to Exist
        • a.  Restraints Short of Actual Custody  14.3
        • b.  Consecutive or Concurrent Sentences  14.4
        • c.  Future Restraints  14.5
      • 2.  Situations in Which Custody Found Not to Exist
        • a.  Petitioner Not in Custody on Prior Conviction Used to Enhance Sentence for Current Conviction  14.6
        • b.  Other Situations in Which Custody Found Not to Exist  14.7
    • B.  Petitioner Must Be in Custody When Petition Is Filed  14.8
    • C.  Mootness and Custody Compared
      • 1.  Federal Jurisdiction Limited to “Cases” and “Controversies”  14.9
      • 2.  Challenge to Conviction Not Moot if Conviction Entails Collateral Consequences  14.10
      • 3.  Challenge to Sentence Likely to Be Moot When Sentence Ends  14.11
      • 4.  Whether Petitioner Must Allege Existence of Collateral Consequences to Avoid Mootness Is Unsettled  14.12
      • 5.  Class Action May Prevent Petition from Becoming Moot  14.13
      • 6.  Exception to Mootness Doctrine  14.14
    • D.  Challenging Pretrial Custody
      • 1.  Challenges to Pretrial Custody Governed by 28 USC §2241  14.15
      • 2.  Grounds for Pretrial Relief  14.16
  • III.  COGNIZABILITY  14.17
  • IV.  EXHAUSTION OF STATE REMEDIES
    • A.  Purpose and Nature of Doctrine  14.18
    • B.  Major Requirements  14.19
      • 1.  Fair Presentation  14.20
        • a.  Fair Presentation of Legal Basis of Claim  14.21
          • (1)  Fair Presentation Exhausts Claim Even if Court Does Not Address Claim  14.22
          • (2)  Court’s Consideration of Merits Exhausts Claim Even if Claim Not Properly Presented  14.23
        • b.  Fair Presentation of Factual Basis of Claim  14.24
          • (1)  Presentation of Additional Facts in Federal Court  14.25
          • (2)  Illustrative Cases  14.26
      • 2.  Presentation to the Highest State Court  14.27
    • C.  Respondent Has Duty to Allege Nonexhaustion  14.28
    • D.  Exhausting State Remedies in Felony Cases
      • 1.  Issues Raised on Direct Appeal  14.29
      • 2.  Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in California Supreme Court  14.30
    • E.  Exhausting State Remedies in Misdemeanor Cases  14.31
    • F.  Steps Not Required to Exhaust State Remedies
      • 1.  Petitioner Not Required to Present Claims More Than Once  14.32
      • 2.  Petitioner Not Required to Petition for Writ of Certiorari  14.33
    • G.  Effect of Failure to Exhaust  14.34
    • H.  Procedure for Petitions Containing Both Exhausted and Unexhausted Claims
      • 1.  Former Rule: Dismissal Required  14.35
      • 2.  Rule of Rhines v Weber: Stay and Abeyance  14.36
    • I.  Circumstances Excusing Failure to Exhaust
      • 1.  Waiver  14.37
      • 2.  Statutory Exceptions to Exhaustion Requirement
        • a.  No State Remedies Available  14.38
        • b.  State Remedies Ineffective  14.39
      • 3.  Non-Statutory Exceptions to the Exhaustion Requirement  14.40

15

Limitations on Federal Habeas Corpus Relief

Carolyn Wiggin

  • I.  AEDPA 1-YEAR TIME LIMIT  15.1
    • A.  Calculating the Date of Finality  15.2
    • B.  Statutory Tolling  15.3
    • C.  Equitable Tolling
      • 1.  Availability  15.4
      • 2.  Circumstances Must Be Extraordinary  15.5
      • 3.  Court May Be Required to Order Factual Development  15.6
      • 4.  Actual Innocence  15.7
    • D.  Amending Petition After Limitation Period  15.8
  • II.  SECOND OR SUCCESSIVE PETITIONS
    • A.  AEDPA Restrictions on Successive Petitions  15.9
    • B.  New Claim in Subsequent Petition [Deleted]  15.10
    • C.  Obtaining Permission to File  15.11
    • D.  Postjudgment Motions  15.11A
  • III.  THE PROCEDURAL DEFAULT DOCTRINE
    • A.  Definition of Procedural Default  15.12
    • B.  Consequences of Procedural Default  15.13
    • C.  Relation Between Exhaustion and Procedural Default  15.14
    • D.  Purpose of Procedural Default Doctrine  15.15
    • E.  State Court Denial of Relief Must Be Based on State Procedural Bar
      • 1.  State Court Denies Relief on Both State and Federal Grounds  15.16
      • 2.  State Court Denies Relief Without Explanation  15.17
      • 3.  State Court Reviews Defaulted Claim Under More Stringent Standard Than It Would Ordinarily Apply  15.18
    • F.  State Procedural Bar Must Be Independent and Adequate  15.19
      • 1.  Determining Whether a State Procedural Bar Is Independent of Federal Law  15.20
      • 2.  Determining Whether State Rule Is Adequate  15.21
      • 3.  Independence and Adequacy of Specific California Procedural Bars  15.22
        • a.  Bar on Habeas Review of Sufficiency of the Evidence Claims  15.23
        • b.  Timeliness   15.24
        • c.  Successive Petitions  15.24A
        • d.  Pretermitted Claims  15.25
        • e.  Claims Presented and Denied on Direct Appeal  15.26
        • f.  Waiver of Sufficiency of Evidence Claim  15.26A
    • G.  Procedural Default Is Affirmative Defense  15.27
    • H.  Avoiding the Procedural Default Bar to Federal Review
      • 1.  Remedying Trial-Stage Procedural Defaults in State Court Proceedings  15.28
      • 2.  Other Factors in Determining Whether a Procedural Default Bars Consideration on the Merits  15.29
      • 3.  Procedural Default May Be the Basis of a Claim of Ineffective Assistance of Counsel  15.30
      • 4.  Excusing Procedural Default by Showing Cause and Prejudice  15.31
        • a.  Showing Cause for Procedural Default  15.32
          • (1)  Circumstances Held to Satisfy the Cause Requirement  15.33
          • (2)  Circumstances Held Not to Satisfy the Cause Requirement  15.34
        • b.  Showing Actual Prejudice  15.35
      • 5.  Exception to Cause and Prejudice Requirement for Fundamental Miscarriage of Justice: The Actual Innocence Gateway  15.36
  • IV.  IMPERMISSIBLE BASES OF HABEAS CLAIMS
    • A.  New Rules of Constitutional Criminal Procedure  15.37
      • 1.  Determining Date of Finality  15.38
      • 2.  What Constitutes a New Rule  15.39
      • 3.  Exceptions to the Teague Nonretroactivity Rule  15.40
    • B.  Fourth Amendment Claims  15.41
    • C.  Issues of State Law  15.42
    • D.  Federal Statutory and Supervisory Power Issues  15.43
    • E.  Right to Preliminary Hearing  15.44
    • F.  Errors in Postconviction Proceeding  15.45
    • G.  Claims of Innocence  15.46
  • V.  EFFECT OF GUILTY PLEA ON SCOPE OF HABEAS CORPUS  15.47

16

Preparing and Filing Petition

Carolyn Wiggin

  • I.  REQUIREMENTS
    • A.  Use of Form Petition  16.1
    • B.  Obtaining Forms  16.2
    • C.  Content  16.3
    • D.  Verification  16.4
  • II.  PROPER PARTIES
    • A.  Petitioner or “Next Friend”  16.5
    • B.  Respondent  16.6
  • III.  FILING THE PETITION
    • A.  Jurisdiction and Venue  16.7
    • B.  Separate Petitions  16.8
    • C.  Where to File; Copies  16.9
  • IV.  FEES
    • A.  In General  16.10
    • B.  Requests for In Forma Pauperis Status  16.11
  • V.  DEFECTIVE OR FRIVOLOUS PETITIONS  16.12
  • VI.  PREFILING REVIEW OF IN FORMA PAUPERIS ACTIONS [Deleted]  16.13
  • VII.  ASSIGNMENT OF THE CASE  16.13A
  • VIII.  JURISDICTION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE  16.13B
  • IX.  CHECKLIST: STEPS IN PREPARING AND FILING FEDERAL HABEAS CORPUS PETITION  16.14
  • X.  FORMS
    • A.  Form: Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody (Central District) (Form CV-69)  16.15
    • B.  Form: Declaration in Support of Request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Central District) (Form CV-69, Continued)  16.16

17

Hearing and Determination of Petition

A.J. Kutchins

  • I.  WHO DECIDES CASE
    • A.  Assignment of the Case  17.1
    • B.  Referral to Magistrate Judge  17.2
  • II.  INITIAL CONSIDERATION OF PETITION
    • A.  Prompt Disposition Requirement  17.3
    • B.  Summary Dismissal  17.4
    • C.  Order to Show Cause  17.5
  • III.  STATE’S RESPONSE
    • A.  Motion to Dismiss  17.6
    • B.  Answer to Petition  17.7
    • C.  Service and Filing  17.8
    • D.  Default Judgment Not Available  17.9
  • IV.  PETITIONER’S REPLY OR “TRAVERSE”  17.10
  • V.  DISTRICT COURT PROCEEDINGS
    • A.  Summary Adjudication  17.11
    • B.  Limitations On Additional Evidence That May Be Considered By Federal Court   17.12
      • 1.  Diligence and Townsend v Sain  17.13
      • 2.  Limitations Imposed Under AEDPA; Cullen v Pinholster  17.14
    • C.  Discovery  17.15
    • D.  Expanding the Record  17.16
    • E.  Conduct of Evidentiary Hearing
      • 1.  Generally  17.17
      • 2.  Applicable Rules  17.18
      • 3.  Petitioner’s Right to Counsel  17.19
      • 4.  Petitioner’s Right to Be Present  17.20
  • VI.  DETERMINATION OF MERITS OF PETITIONER’S CLAIM FOR RELIEF
    • A.  Substantive Limitations Imposed By AEDPA  17.21
    • B.  Harmless Error
      • 1.  The Brecht Standard  17.22
      • 2.  When Brecht Applies and When It Does Not  17.23
  • VII.  DISPOSITION
    • A.  Immediate Effect of District Court’s Habeas Decision  17.24
    • B.  Res Judicata Effect of District Court’s Habeas Decision  17.25
  • VIII.  FORMS
    • A.  Form: Motion to Dismiss  17.26
    • B.  Form: Reply to Answer (Petitioner’s Traverse)  17.27

18

Review of District Court’s Decision

Michael Satris

  • I.  APPEAL
    • A.  Generally  18.1
    • B.  Notice of Appeal
      • 1.  Must Be Filed in District Court  18.2
      • 2.  Must Be Timely  18.3
      • 3.  Calculating Due Date  18.4
      • 4.  Calculating Due Date When Post-Judgment Motion Filed  18.5
      • 5.  Timeliness of Notice by Incarcerated Litigant: The “Mailbox Rule”  18.6
      • 6.  Required Contents of Notice  18.7
      • 7.  Service  18.8
      • 8.  Extending or Reopening Time for Filing Notice  18.9
    • C.  Certificate of Appealability
      • 1.  When Required  18.10
      • 2.  Standards for Issuance  18.11
      • 3.  Scope of COA  18.12
      • 4.  Procedural Aspects
        • a.  In District Court  18.13
        • b.  In Court of Appeals
          • (1)  When District Court Denies COA  18.14
          • (2)  When District or Circuit Court Certifies at Least One Issue  18.15
        • c.  In the United States Supreme Court  18.16
    • D.  Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis  18.17
    • E.  Counsel on Appeal  18.18
    • F.  Electronic Filing Requirements  18.19
    • G.  Effect of Appeal on Inmate’s Custodial Status
      • 1.  Stays
        • a.  Stay of State Court Proceedings or Judgment  18.20
        • b.  Stay of District Court Judgment  18.21
        • c.  Stays of Execution in Capital Cases  18.22
      • 2.  Release Pending Appeal  18.23
      • 3.  Transfer of Custody Pending Appeal  18.24
    • H.  Record and Motions
      • 1.  The Record on Appeal  18.25
      • 2.  Possible Motions  18.25A
    • I.  Briefs
      • 1.  Content Requirements
        • a.  Appellant’s Brief  18.26
        • b.  Appellee’s Brief  18.27
        • c.  Reply Brief  18.28
      • 2.  Format Requirements  18.29
      • 3.  Limitations on Length  18.30
      • 4.  Service and Filing Requirements  18.31
        • a.  Extension of Time for Filing Brief  18.32
        • b.  Consequences of Failure to File Brief  18.33
      • 5.  Number of Briefs  18.34
    • J.  Excerpts of Record
      • 1.  Content Requirements  18.35
      • 2.  Format Requirements for Excerpts of Record  18.36
      • 3.  Supplemental Excerpts of Record  18.37
      • 4.  Failure to Comply With Excerpts of Record Requirements  18.38
      • 5.  Pro Se Parties  18.39
    • K.  Hearing
      • 1.  Oral Argument  18.40
      • 2.  Standard of Review  18.41
    • L.  Forms
      • 1.  Form: Notice of Appeal  18.42
      • 2.  Form: Motion for Order Extending Time for Appeal  18.43
      • 3.  Form: Declaration in Support of Motion for Order Extending Time for Appeal  18.44
      • 4.  Form: Order Extending Time for Appeal  18.45
      • 5.  Form: Motion for Leave to Proceed on Appeal In Forma Pauperis (Federal District Court)  18.46
      • 6.  Form: Order Granting Leave to Prosecute Appeal In Forma Pauperis (Federal District Court)  18.47
      • 7.  Form: Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Ninth Circuit)  18.48
      • 8.  Form: Order Granting Leave to Proceed on Appeal In Forma Pauperis (Ninth Circuit)  18.49
      • 9.  Form: Appellant’s Opening Brief  18.50
  • II.  POSTAPPELLATE REVIEW
    • A.  Rehearing
      • 1.  Petitions
        • a.  Content and Form Requirements  18.51
        • b.  Service and Filing Requirements  18.52
      • 2.  Answer  18.53
      • 3.  Disposition  18.54
      • 4.  En Banc Determinations  18.55
      • 5.  Mandate of the Court  18.56
    • B.  Petition for Writ of Certiorari to United States Supreme Court  18.57
    • C.  Form: Petition for Rehearing  18.58

APPEALS AND WRITS IN CRIMINAL CASES

(3d Edition)

June 2019

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

File Name

Book Section

Title

CH02

Chapter 2

The Right to Counsel on Appeal; Implementation in California

02-033

§2.33

Application for Certificate of Probable Cause

02-034

§2.34

Declaration in Support of Certificate of Probable Cause

02-035

§2.35

Certificate of Probable Cause

02-036

§2.36

Motion for Appointment of Counsel on Appeal

02-037

§2.37

Application for Bail on Appeal—Trial Court

02-038

§2.38

Application for Stay of Execution (and Bail)—Trial Court

02-039

§2.39

Wende Brief

02-040

§2.40

Abandonment of Appeal

CH03

Chapter 3

Procedural Aspects of Appellate Representation

03-046

§3.46

Sample Letter Notifying Superior Court Clerk of Omissions From Appellate Record

03-047

§3.47

Motion to Augment Record on Appeal

03-048

§3.48

Application for Permission to Prepare Settled Statement

03-050

§3.50

Sample Proposed Statement on Appeal

03-051

§3.51

Application for Extension of Time

CH04

Chapter 4

Handling a Criminal Appeal

04-045

§4.45

General Information About Criminal Appeals

04-046

§4.46

Application to Reviewing Court for Release Pending Appeal

04-047

§4.47

Application to Reviewing Court for Stay of Execution

04-048

§4.48

Motion for Judicial Notice

04-049

§4.49

Application to Expand Appointment

CH05

Chapter 5

Hearing and Determination of Appeal

05-052

§5.52

Transmission of Exhibits

05-053

§5.53

Petition for Rehearing

05-054

§5.54

Petition for Review

CH08

Chapter 8

Preparing and Opposing Petitions for Mandate or Prohibition

08-010

§8.10

Cover for Use in the Appellate Courts

08-011

§8.11

Title Page in the Superior Court

08-013

§§8.13–8.14

Table of Contents

 

§8.14

Table of Authorities

08-016

§8.16

Allegation Concerning Request for Stay

08-018

§8.18

Salutation

08-019

§8.19

Opening Paragraph

08-021

§8.21

Allegation Concerning Beneficial Interest of Petitioner and Capacity of Respondent and Real Party in Interest

08-022

§8.22

Allegation Concerning Respondent

08-023

§8.23

Allegation Concerning Venue

08-024

§8.24

Prior Petitions

08-025

§8.25

Allegation Explaining Why Petition Not Brought in Lower Court

08-026

§8.26

Allegation Explaining Why Relief Previously Sought in Higher Court

08-030

§8.30

Allegation When Objection Raised Below and Rejected or Not Ruled on

08-031

§8.31

Allegation When Objection Impossible or Futile

08-033

§8.33

Allegation When Time for Appeal Has Expired

08-034

§8.34

Allegation When Petition Challenges Nonappealable Order

08-035

§8.35

No Right of Appeal

08-036

§8.36

Remedy on Appeal Inadequate

08-037

§8.37

Allegation Concerning Need for Relief

08-039

§8.39

Prayer

08-040

§8.40

Verification

08-046

§8.46

Sample Request for Preparation of Transcript for Pretrial Writ Petition (Superior Court)

08-066

§8.66

Alternative Writ (Superior Court)

CH10

Chapter 10

Preparing and Opposing Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

10-034

§10.34

Sample Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus to Appellate Court

10-035

§10.35

Order to Show Cause Re Writ of Habeas Corpus

CH11

Chapter 11

Writs of Error Coram Nobis and Coram Vobis

11-010

§11.10

Court and Cause in Trial Court

11-012

§11.12

Opening Paragraphs

11-013

§11.13

Common Facts and Grounds

11-014

§11.14

Grounds for Writ—Misrepresentation and Corroboration

11-015

§11.15

Diligence of Petitioner

11-016

§11.16

Petitioner’s Free Will Overcome

11-017

§11.17

Existence of Meritorious Defense

11-018

§11.18

Reliance on Misrepresentation

11-019

§11.19

Facts Not Appearing of Record; Reference to Accompanying Affidavits

11-020

§11.20

Exhaustion of Remedies; No Other Remedy Available

11-021

§11.21

Prayer

11-022

§11.22

Verification

CH12

Chapter 12

Review in the United States Supreme Court

12-012

§12.12

Motion for Stay of Execution

12-016

§12.16

Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

12-018

§12.18

Certificate of Service

12-023

§12.23

Declaration of Mailing

12-024

§12.24

Certificate of Service

12-029

§12.29

Cover

12-030

§12.30

Questions Presented

12-031

§12.31

Parties to the Proceeding

12-037

§12.37

Inside Caption, Prayer for Relief, Opinions Below, Jurisdiction (Petition for Writ of Certiorari)

CH13

Chapter 13

Federal Habeas Corpus: Overview; Appointment of Counsel; Bail and Stays; Standards and Grounds for Review

13-015

§13.15

Request for Appointment of Counsel

13-019

§13.19

Application for Bail Pending Determination of Petition for Writ of Federal Habeas Corpus

13-020

§13.20

Declaration in Support of Application for Bail

13-021

§13.21

Proof of Service

CH16

Chapter 16

Preparing and Filing Petition

16-014

§16.14

Checklist: Steps in Preparing and Filing Federal Habeas Corpus Petition

CH17

Chapter 17

Hearing and Determination of Petition

17-026

§17.26

Motion to Dismiss

17-027

§17.27

Reply to Answer (Petitioner’s Traverse)

CH18

Chapter 18

Review of District Court’s Decision

18-042

§18.42

Notice of Appeal

18-043

§18.43

Motion for Order Extending Time for Appeal

18-044

§18.44

Declaration in Support of Motion for Order Extending Time for Appeal

18-045

§18.45

Order Extending Time for Appeal

18-046

§18.46

Motion for Leave to Proceed on Appeal In Forma Pauperis (Federal District Court)

18-047

§18.47

Order Granting Leave to Prosecute Appeal In Forma Pauperis (Federal District Court)

18-048

§18.48

Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Ninth Circuit)

18-049

§18.49

Order Granting Leave to Proceed on Appeal In Forma Pauperis (Ninth Circuit)

18-050

§18.50

Appellant’s Opening Brief

18-058

§18.58

Petition for Rehearing

 

Selected Developments

June 2019 Update

The current update includes changes that reflect recent developments in case law, legislation, court rules, and jury instructions. Summarized below are some of the more important developments included in this update since publication of the 2018 update.

STATUTORY DEVELOPMENTS

Bail. Operative October 1, 2019, designated pretrial assessment services will replace the current bail system. See Stats 2018, ch 244 (SB 10) (repealing Pen C §§1268–1320.5, amending Govt C §27771, and adding Pen C §§1320.6–1320.34). Referendum 18–0009, which seeks to overturn SB 10, has qualified for the November 3, 2020, ballot. Qualification of this referendum suspends enactment of the legislation. See Cal Const art II, §9; Rossi v Brown (1995) 9 C4th 688, 703. The California Supreme Court has also granted review in In re Humphrey (review granted May 24, 2018, S247278; superseded opinion at 19 CA5th 1006) to determine whether, in setting bail, a court must consider the client’s ability to pay bail, nonmonetary alternatives to bail, and public safety concerns. See also In re Webb (review granted Apr. 25, 2018, S247074; superseded opinion at 20 CA5th 44); In re White (review granted May 23, 2018, S248125; superseded opinion at 21 CA5th 18); In re Avignone (2018) 26 CA5th 195 (following Humphrey, court of appeal found that increase of bail amounted to pretrial detention order). See §9.15.

California Rules of Professional Conduct. On May 10, 2018, the California Supreme Court issued an order approving the new Rules of Professional Conduct, which went into effect on November 1, 2018, and includes a renumbering of the rules. See §§2.18, 2.30, 3.38, 4.1, 6.20.

CASE LAW DEVELOPMENTS

Irregularities in proceedings. The failure to raise a penalty assessment claim during an appeal that includes at least one other claim waives that claim for later appeals. See People v Jordan (2018) 21 CA5th 1136 in §§1.8, 5.16.

Certificate of probable cause. A defendant who has waived the right to appeal as part of a plea agreement must obtain a certificate of probable cause to appeal on any ground covered by the waiver, regardless of whether the claim arose before or after the entry of the plea. See People v Espinoza (2018) 22 CA5th 794 in §§1.11, 1.14. A defendant is also not required to obtain a certificate of probable cause when a retroactive statute that applies to all nonfinal cases allows for the trial court to strike an enhancement. See People v Hurlic (2018) 25 CA5th 50 in §1.14. However, in People v Kelly (2019) 32 CA5th 1013, the court of appeal held that a certificate of probable cause was required to challenge a 5-year enhancement in a stipulated sentence. See §1.14.

Waiver of right to appeal. A specific waiver of sentencing error in a stipulated sentence does not preclude an appeal based on later changes to the sentencing statute. People v Wright (2019) 31 CA5th 749. But see People v Barton (2019) 32 CA5th 1088 (waiver of right to appeal stipulated sentence includes future sentencing error based on change in law). See §1.15.

Order granting habeas corpus relief. When the prosecution appeals the grant of a new trial on a habeas petition, the trial court retains jurisdiction to dismiss for failure to bring the defendant to trial within 60 days, unless the prosecution seeks and is granted a stay. See People v Bilbrey (2018) 25 CA5th 764 in §§1.28, 1.30, 10.32.

Right to counsel. The appellate division of the superior court is required to appoint counsel for an indigent defendant charged with a misdemeanor offense on an appeal by the prosecution. Gardner v Appellate Div. of Superior Court (Mar. 28, 2019, S246214) 2019 Cal Lexis 2043. See §2.1.

Duty when appellate counsel finds no arguable issues. In People v Garcia (2018) 24 CA5th 314, the court of appeal held that there is no constitutional requirement that the issues arguably supporting an appeal be listed in a Wende brief. See §2.26.

Certification of the record for completeness and accuracy. Although an incomplete record violates Pen C §190.9, no presumption of prejudice arises from the absence of materials from the appellate record. When the record is incomplete the defendant bears the burden of demonstrating that the record is inadequate to permit meaningful appellate review. See People v Woodruff (2018) 5 C5th 697 in §§6.2, 6.27.

Postconviction discovery. For a recent case discussing motions to preserve evidence potentially discoverable under Pen C §1054.9 during an automatic appeal of a capital case, see Shorts v Superior Court (2018) 24 CA5th 709 in §§6.21, 7.28, 8.64.

Challenge to denial of Pen C §995 motion. The most frequent use of prohibition is to prevent further proceedings, including trial, after denial of a motion under Pen C §995 to set aside the information or indictment. See Heidary v Superior Court (2018) 26 CA5th 110 in §7.34.

Challenging length or conditions of confinement. For a recent case discussing Proposition 57 parole eligibility relief, see In re Edwards (2018) 26 CA5th 1181 in §9.22.

Double jeopardy. In Currier v Virginia (2018) ___ US ___, 138 S Ct 2144, the United States Supreme Court held that a defendant who agrees to sever charges and have two trials cannot argue that second trial invokes double jeopardy. See §13.28.

Right to effective assistance of trial counsel. For a recent case discussing how the Ninth Circuit upheld the state court’s denial of relief on ineffective assistance grounds, see Ellis v Harrison (8th Cir 2018) 891 F3d 1160 in §13.33. If the absence of a tactical reason for trial counsel’s arguably incompetent act or omission is not evident on the face of the record, it is preferable to raise ineffective assistance of counsel in a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, even if the error and its consequences are evident on the face of the record. See, e.g., People v Arredondo (2018) 21 CA5th 493, 500 (counsel stating in closing argument that defendant was guilty). §4.34.

Right to self-representation. The right to self-representation is not waived by acquiescence to the court’s denial. See Tamplin v Muniz (9th Cir 2018) 894 F3d 1076 in §13.35.

Mootness and custody. The court may convert a petition under 28 USC §2254 into a petition under 28 USC §2241 if a petitioner’s conviction was vacated during the pendency of the petition and the petitioner became a pretrial detainee. See Dominguez v Kernan (9th Cir 2018) 906 F3d 1127 in §§14.9, 14.15.

Exhausting state remedies. Under the “look through” doctrine of Ylst v Nunnemaker (1991) 501 US 797, 111 S Ct 2590, federal courts assessing whether 28 USC §2254(d) bars relief will “look through” the summary denials in these higher courts to the reasoning of the superior court. See Wilson v Sellers (2018) ___ US ___, 138 S Ct 1188 in §14.30.

Equitable tolling. For a recent case discussing how a petitioner reasonably relied on unsettled state of the law, see Williams v Filson (9th Cir 2018) 908 F3d 546 in §15.4.

Amending petition after limitation period. In Ross v Williams (9th Cir 2018) 896 F3d 958, the court of appeals found that there was no relation back because the petition contained no facts. See §15.8.

AEDPA restrictions on successive petitions. Because the factual predicate accrues when a constitutional violation occurs, a Brady violation occurs when the exculpatory evidence should have been disclosed. See Brown v Muniz (9th Cir 2018) 889 F3d 661 in §15.9. For a recent case discussing how the petitioner failed to exercise due diligence in discovering exculpatory evidence, see Solorio v Muniz (9th Cir 2018) 896 F3d 914 in §15.9.

State court denial of relief without explanation. In Sexton v Beaudreaux (2018) ___ US ___, 138 S Ct 2555, the United States Supreme Court held that the court of appeals failed to consider reasonable grounds to support of the state court’s summary decision. See §15.17.

About the Authors

CHARLES M. BONNEAU, JR., B.A., 1969, University of California, Berkeley; J.D., 1973, University of California, Davis, School of Law. Mr. Bonneau is in private practice in Sacramento. He co-authored the Supplement to Appeals and Writs in Criminal Cases (CEB) from 1988 to 1998. He is a member of the California Academy of Appellate Lawyers and California Attorneys for Criminal Justice. He has been a guest speaker for California Appellate Defense Counsel and the Federal Defender Training Program in Habeas Corpus. Mr. Bonneau has argued a number of cases in the California Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit. He has defended four death penalty cases at trial and five in postconviction proceedings. He obtained the reversal of a death penalty conviction on grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel in In re Jones (1996) 13 C4th 552.

ADRIAN G. DRISCOLL, B.S., 1977, University of California, Davis; J.D., 1980, University of San Francisco School of Law. Mr. Driscoll is a senior counsel at Murphy, Pearson, Bradley & Feeney, with a practice that includes appeals and writs. He also teaches as an adjunct professor at the University of San Francisco School of Law.

CLIFFORD GARDNER, B.A., 1977, State University of New York at Binghamton; J.D., 1980, University of California, Los Angeles, School of Law. In private practice in Oakland, Mr. Gardner specializes in postconviction proceedings in state and federal courts. He has argued cases at all levels of the state and federal systems, including several cases in the United States Supreme Court and more than a dozen cases in the California Supreme Court. He is a frequent lecturer on state and federal habeas corpus practice and has served on both the state Judicial Council’s Appellate Advisory Committee (1998–2004) and the Northern District Habeas Corpus Local Rules Advisory Subcommittee. In 2006, Mr. Gardner received the Paul E. Bell Memorial Award, given to honor excellence in representing the indigent.

STEPHEN GREENBERG, B.A., 1974, University of California, Santa Cruz; J.D., 1979, New College of California. Mr. Greenberg has been practicing appellate law since 1988. He is a panel attorney with the First District Appellate Project and Central California Appellate Program. Mr. Greenberg has been published in Forecite, CACJ Forum, CADC’s Cal App News, and (with former Supreme Court Justice Cruz Reynoso) the Daily Journal. He is also a founder of CalAppErrors.com.

JONATHAN GROSSMAN, B.A., 1988, University of California, Berkeley; J.D., 1991, University of California, Hastings College of the Law. Mr. Grossman was a Deputy Public Defender in San Joaquin County and is currently a staff attorney with the Sixth District Appellate Program.

AMY HADDIX, B.A., 1993, University of California, Berkeley; J.D., 1996, University of California, Berkeley, School of Law. Ms. Haddix was a Deputy Attorney General in San Francisco from 1996 to 2012, specializing in criminal writs and appeals. She is currently a chamber attorney with the California Supreme Court.

SUSAN HORST, B.A., 1969, Stanford University; J.D., 1976, University of Santa Clara School of Law. Ms. Horst served as a writ attorney at the Court of Appeal, First Appellate District in San Francisco for over 31 years. She is currently in private practice in San Francisco. She is a former Assistant District Attorney for the City and County of San Francisco, and is a frequent lecturer on writ practice.

NEOMA D. KENWOOD, B.A., 1978, Indiana University; J.D., 1981, University of California, Los Angeles, School of Law. Ms. Kenwood is senior staff attorney at the California Appellate Project (San Francisco) and has been in private practice in Berkeley since 1993. She is a former staff attorney with the Office of the State Public Defender and the First District Appellate Project. Ms. Kenwood’s capital case experience includes handling the automatic appeal in state court, and related habeas corpus proceedings in both state and federal court.

A.J. KUTCHINS, B.A., 1978, Antioch University; J.D., 1981, University of California, Berkeley, School of Law. After 2 years as a law clerk for the Hon. Lawrence K. Karlton (then) Chief Judge of the East District of California, and a few years in a small law firm, in 1986 Mr. Kutchins established his solo practice devoted primarily to appeals and writs in criminal cases. His emphasis over the last decade or so has been on federal habeas practice in the district courts and the Ninth Circuit. He was one of the first group of attorneys selected to serve as Appellate Lawyer Representatives to the Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference, and was one of several authors and editors of “The Appellate Lawyer Representatives’ Guide to Practice in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit” (available on the Ninth Circuit website). Mr. Kutchins has served as an update author to chapter 42, Felony Appeals, in CEB’s California Criminal Law Procedure and Practice (Cal CEB), and has authored numerous articles and award-winning training films on subjects related to the law, ethics, and civil rights.

JAMES A. LASSART, B.A., 1964, University of Santa Clara; J.D., 1967, University of San Francisco Law School. Mr. Lassart is a partner at Murphy, Pearson, Bradley & Feeney, with a practice that includes criminal defense. He is a former Assistant U.S. Attorney and Coordinator of the Northwest Region of the President’s Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force, and served for 12 years as an Assistant District Attorney for the City and County of San Francisco.

THERENE POWELL, B.A., 1969, University of California, Berkeley; J.D., 1974, University of Southern California. Ms. Powell was an attorney with the Office of the State Public Defender from 1976–2005, and since 1993 has worked exclusively on automatic appeals and related habeas corpus proceedings in state court. She is currently in private practice in Sunnyvale.

MORGAN PRICKETT, B.A., 1976, University of Southern California; M.A., 1977, political science, University of Southern California; J.D., 1980, University of California, Hastings College of the Law. Mr. Prickett is a Senior Judicial Staff Attorney at the First District Court of Appeal in San Francisco. He is the author of Writ of Error Coram Nobis in California, 30 Santa Clara Law Review 1 (1990).

LYNDA A. ROMERO, B.A, 1976, University of California, Irvine; J.D., 1979, University of California, Los Angeles, School of Law. Ms. Romero is a sole practitioner in San Diego, who limits her practice to criminal appeals and postconviction work. Ms. Romero was a member of the State Bar Committee of the Appellate Courts from 1985–1989 and chaired the committee in 1988–1989. In 1998, Ms. Romero received a Clay Award (California Attorneys of the Year) from California Lawyer magazine. Also in 1998, Ms. Romero was named outstanding appellate lawyer of the year by the San Diego Criminal Defense Bar Association.

MICHAEL SATRIS, B.A., 1971, University of California, Berkeley; J.D. 1975, University of California, Davis, School of Law. In 1976, Mr. Satris co-founded the Prison Law Office, a nonprofit corporation adjacent to San Quentin Prison that provides legal services for California prisoners, and directed its operations until 1984. At that time, he established a private practice emphasizing postconviction remedies, which is now located in Bolinas.

GEORGE SCHRAER, B.A., 1968, University of California, Berkeley; J.D., 1971, University of California, Los Angeles, School of Law. Mr. Schraer, a sole practitioner in San Diego, has been a criminal appellate attorney for more than 30 years, including 5 years as a staff and supervising attorney in the California State Public Defender Office. Mr. Schraer has been counsel of record in more than 500 appeals, including 12 in the California Supreme Court, and has authored or co-authored amicus curiae briefs in three cases in the United States Supreme Court and 10 cases in the California Supreme Court. He is the 2002 recipient of the Paul Bell Memorial Award “for consistent professional excellence and unselfish commitment to the cause of indigent representation on appeal,” and can still consistently hit a 20-foot jump shot.

DAVID Y. STANLEY, B.A., 1967, Willamette University; J.D., 1975, University of Michigan Law School. Mr. Stanley is in private practice in Klamath Falls, Oregon, specializing in criminal appeals and writs. A former executive director of the First District Appellate Project in San Francisco, Mr. Stanley has been both a prosecutor and a defense attorney and has practiced at the trial level and at the appellate level. From 1995 to 1998, Mr. Stanley was an adjunct professor at the University of California, Hastings College of the Law, where he taught appellate advocacy, legal writing and research, and moot court.

CAROLYN WIGGIN, B.A., 1990, University of California, Berkeley; J.D., 1994, Yale University School of Law. Ms. Wiggin is an Assistant Federal Defender in the Office of the Federal Public Defender in Sacramento, where she handles appeals and represents state prisoners in federal habeas corpus proceedings.

About the 2019 Update Authors

BRIDGET BILLETER (chapter 1) received her B.A. in 1993 from the University of California, San Diego, and her J.D. in 1996 from the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law. Ms. Billeter is a Deputy Attorney General with the California Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General, since 1999. She handles felony appeals and writs in both state and federal court. She has been the People’s Appeals Coordinator for the San Francisco office since 2012 and handles all international cases involving the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. She has presented numerous times to both domestic and international audiences about the implementation of the Hague Treaty provisions in California.

CHARLES M. BONNEAU, JR. (chapter 3) received his B.A. in 1969 from the University of California, Berkeley, and his J.D. in 1973 from the University of California, Davis, School of Law. Mr. Bonneau is in private practice in Sacramento. He co-authored the Supplement to Appeals and Writs in Criminal Cases (CEB) from 1988 to 1998. He is a member of the California Academy of Appellate Lawyers and California Attorneys for Criminal Justice. He has been a guest speaker for California Appellate Defense Counsel and the Federal Defender Training Program in Habeas Corpus. Mr. Bonneau has argued a number of cases in the California Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit. He has defended four death penalty cases at trial and five in postconviction proceedings. He obtained the reversal of a death penalty conviction on grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel in In re Jones (1996) 13 C4th 552.

ADRIAN G. DRISCOLL (chapter 8) received his B.S. in 1977 from the University of California, Davis, and his J.D. in 1980 from the University of San Francisco School of Law. Mr. Driscoll is a senior counsel at Murphy, Pearson, Bradley & Feeney, with a practice that includes appeals and writs. He also teaches as an adjunct professor at the University of San Francisco School of Law.

STEPHEN GREENBERG (chapter 2) received his B.A. in 1974 from the University of California, Santa Cruz, and his J.D. in 1979 from the New College of California. Mr. Greenberg has been practicing appellate law since 1988. He is a panel attorney with the First District Appellate Project and Central California Appellate Program. Mr. Greenberg has been published in Forecite, CACJ Forum, CADC’s Cal App News, and (with former Supreme Court Justice Cruz Reynoso) the Daily Journal. He is also a founder of CalAppErrors.com.

JONATHAN GROSSMAN (chapter 13) received his B.A. in 1988 from the University of California, Berkeley, and his J.D. in 1991 from the University of California, Hastings College of the Law. Mr. Grossman was a Deputy Public Defender in San Joaquin County and is a staff attorney with the Sixth District Appellate Program.

KURT D. HERMANSEN (chapter 9) received his B.A, in 1988 from the University of California, Los Angeles, and his J.D. in 1993 from the Loyola Law School, Los Angeles. Mr. Hermansen is a Criminal Law Specialist certified by the California State Bar Board of Legal Specialization. His San Diego-based practice focuses on state and federal criminal trials, appeals, and postconviction (especially habeas corpus) work. He serves on the Criminal Law Executive Committee of the California Lawyers Association. Mr. Hermansen served on and chaired the Criminal Law Advisory Commission to the California State Bar’s Board of Legal Specialization (2011–2015) and served on and chaired the California State Bar’s Committee on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Discrimination (1996–2000). He is the 2017 recipient of the San Diego Criminal Defense Bar Association’s Appellate Attorney of the Year Award. He is also the 2016 recipient of the E. Stanley Conant Award for exceptional and unselfish devotion to protecting the rights of the indigent accused, presented by the Board of Directors of Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., and Appellate Defenders, Inc.

SUSAN HORST (chapter 7) received her B.A. in 1969 from Stanford University, and her J.D. in 1976 from the University of Santa Clara School of Law. Ms. Horst served as a writ attorney at the Court of Appeal, First Appellate District in San Francisco for over 31 years. She is in private practice in San Francisco. She is a former Assistant District Attorney for the City and County of San Francisco, and is a frequent lecturer on writ practice.

A.J. KUTCHINS (chapter 17) received his B.A. in 1978 from Antioch University, and his J.D. in 1981 from the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law. After 2 years as a law clerk for the Hon. Lawrence K. Karlton (then) Chief Judge of the East District of California, and a few years in a small law firm, in 1986 Mr. Kutchins established his solo practice devoted primarily to appeals and writs in criminal cases. His emphasis over the last decade or so has been on federal habeas practice in the district courts and the Ninth Circuit. He was one of the first group of attorneys selected to serve as Appellate Lawyer Representatives to the Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference, and was one of several authors and editors of “The Appellate Lawyer Representatives’ Guide to Practice in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit” (available on the Ninth Circuit website). Mr. Kutchins has served as an update author to chapter 42, Felony Appeals, in CEB’s California Criminal Law Procedure and Practice (Cal CEB), and has authored numerous articles and award-winning training films on subjects related to the law, ethics, and civil rights.

JAMES A. LASSART (chapter 7) received his B.A. in 1964 from the University of Santa Clara, and his J.D. in 1967 from the University of San Francisco Law School. Mr. Lassart is a partner at Murphy, Pearson, Bradley & Feeney, with a practice that includes criminal defense. He is a former Assistant U.S. Attorney and Coordinator of the Northwest Region of the President’s Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force, and served for 12 years as an Assistant District Attorney for the City and County of San Francisco.

MORGAN PRICKETT (chapter 11) received his B.A. in 1976 from the University of Southern California, his M.A. in 1977 in political science from the University of Southern California, and his J.D. in 1980 from the University of California, Hastings College of the Law. Mr. Prickett is a Senior Judicial Staff Attorney at the First District Court of Appeal in San Francisco. He is the author of Writ of Error Coram Nobis in California, 30 Santa Clara Law Review 1 (1990).

LYNDA A. ROMERO (chapter 10) received her B.A. in 1976 from the University of California, Irvine, and her J.D. in 1979 from the University of California, Los Angeles, School of Law. Ms. Romero is a sole practitioner in San Diego who limits her practice to criminal appeals and postconviction work. Ms. Romero was a member of the State Bar Committee of the Appellate Courts from 1985–1989 and chaired the committee in 1988–1989. In 1998, Ms. Romero received a Clay Award (California Attorneys of the Year) from California Lawyer magazine. Also in 1998, Ms. Romero was named outstanding appellate lawyer of the year by the San Diego Criminal Defense Bar Association.

GEORGE SCHRAER (chapters 4–5) received his B.A. in 1968 from the University of California, Berkeley, and his J.D. in 1971 from the University of California, Los Angeles, School of Law. Mr. Schraer, a sole practitioner in San Diego, has been a criminal appellate attorney for more than 30 years, including 5 years as a staff and supervising attorney in the California State Public Defender Office. Mr. Schraer has been counsel of record in more than 500 appeals, including 12 in the California Supreme Court, and has authored or co-authored amicus curiae briefs in three cases in the United States Supreme Court and 10 cases in the California Supreme Court. He is the 2002 recipient of the Paul Bell Memorial Award “for consistent professional excellence and unselfish commitment to the cause of indigent representation on appeal,” and can still consistently hit a 20-foot jump shot.

CAROLYN WIGGIN (chapters 15–16) received her B.A. in 1990 from the University of California, Berkeley, and her J.D. in 1994 from Yale University School of Law. Ms. Wiggin is an Assistant Federal Defender in the Office of the Federal Public Defender in Sacramento, where she handles appeals and represents state prisoners in federal habeas corpus proceedings.

Products specifications
PRODUCT GROUP Publication
PRACTICE AREA Criminal Law
Products specifications
PRODUCT GROUP Publication
PRACTICE AREA Criminal Law