Skip to content

Did True Finding on PC 12022.53, subd. (d) Enhancement Render People v. Chun (2009) 45 Cal.4th 1172 Error Harmless Beyond a Reasonable Doubt

The court issued an order to show cause why relief should not be granted on the ground that the jury's true finding on the Penal Code section 12022.53, subdivision (d) enhancement did not render the People v. Chun (2009) 45 Cal.4th 1172 error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The jury’s true finding on a firearm enhancement (Pen. Code, § 12022.53, subd. (d))…

Case: In re Ferrell (2023) 14 Cal.5th 593
Case Number: S265798
Updated: April 6, 2023
Read more

When Does AG Have Duty to Disclose Brady Material During Habeas Proceedings

When a habeas petitioner claims not to have received a fair trial because the district attorney failed to disclose material evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland (1963) 373 U.S. 83--and when the Attorney General has knowledge of, or is in actual or constructive possession of, such evidence--what duty, if any, does the Attorney General have to acknowledge or disclose that evidence…

Case: In re Jenkins (2023) ___ Cal.5th ___
Case Number: S267391/B301638
Updated: March 27, 2023
Read more

Request to Answer Question of State Law–Habeas Deadlines

The California Supreme Court granted the Ninth Circuit's request for the court to decide a question of California law. The question presented, as phrased in the request, is: When a state habeas petitioner has no good cause for delay, at what point in time is that state prisoner's petition, filed in a California court of review to challenge a lower…

Case: Robinson v. Lewis (2020) 9 Cal.5th 883
Case Number: S228137
Updated: July 20, 2020
Read more

State Habeas Case–Due Process Violations Based on the Suppression of Evidence / Whether There is an Adequate and Independent State-Law Ground for the Judgment

1. a. Whether the State’s suppression of the key prosecution witness’s admission he was under the care of a psychiatrist and failure to correct that witness’s false testimony about that care and related diagnosis violate the due process of law. See Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963); Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959). b. Whether the entirety of…

Case: Glossip v. State (Okla.Crim.App 2023) 529 P.3d 218, cert. granted 1/22/2024
Case Number: 22-7466
Updated: January 22, 2024
Read more