Habeas Corpus (State)

Name: In re Moore
Case #: D086215
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 09/08/2026

On habeas, the prosecution experts’ “unequivocal conclusion” that fatal injuries to defendant’s infant daughter could not result from a fall constituted “false evidence” requiring reversal under PC 1473(b)(1)(A). Subsequent scientific developments undermined the experts’ testimony, rendering the conclusion “false” (PC 1473(b)(2)), and the defendant sufficiently demonstrated its materiality. The Court of Appeal declined to release the defendant (PC 1476) without prejudice to the defendant raising the issue following remand.

The full opinion is available on the court’s website here:

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Esquivias
Case #: S286371
Court: CA Supreme Court
Opinion Date: 08/17/2026

A grant of habeas corpus relief as to a portion of a sentence does not necessarily obligate the trial court to conduct a full resentencing. Petitioner filed a habeas corpus petition requesting retroactive application of SB 620 (In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740). The trial court struck petitioner's firearm enhancement but declined to do a full resentencing. The California Supreme Court affirmed, finding that habeas corpus petitions must be assessed on a case-by-case basis and SB 620 relief does not require a full resentencing.

[Editor's note: J. Evans filed a dissenting opinion, in which J. Liu concurred, where they…

View Full Summary
Name: In re McCowen
Case #: E087834
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 07/22/2026

The Court of Appeal holds that the Supreme Court's issuance of an order to show cause constitutes a determination that the habeas claim is not procedurally barred. The court of appeal therefore rejected the prosecution’s procedural default argument and ordered the trial court to hold an evidentiary hearing on the petitioner’s claim his conviction rested on false evidence (PC 1473(b)(1)(A)).

A concurring justice would have held that an order to show cause does not “definitively” foreclose forfeiture arguments.

The full opinion is available on the court’s website here:

View Full Summary
Name: In re Melson
Case #: B336211
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 07/02/2026

Reversible error where prosecution failed to correct knowingly false witness identification testimony. Applying Napue v. Illinois (1959) 360 U.S. 264, the reviewing court found that the People failed to comply with the constitutional obligation to correct false testimony after two eyewitnesses changed their testimony at defendant's second trial to falsely claim that they had initially told the police certain key identifying features about the defendant. Considering the matter as a whole, including the lack of preparation by trial counsel to cross-examine the two witnesses, the People did not show beyond a reasonable doubt that the false testimony did not contribute…

View Full Summary
Name: Harmon v. Superior Court
Case #: E086720
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 01/20/2026

Public defenders have discretion to decline to represent a petitioner seeking postconviction habeas relief and need not make a showing of unavailability. Representation of an indigent person in prosecuting a habeas petition does not fall under GC 27706(a), which mandates appointment of the PD in the trial phase of a case unless there is a conflict or other showing of unavailability. Instead, it falls under GC 27706(g), which states the PD “may” represent an indigent person “in a proceeding of any nature,” permitting the PD to refuse appointment.

[Editor’s note: A concurring opinion would have found the issuance of the OSC…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Perez-Tinoco
Case #: G064424
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 10/30/2025

Habeas relief under People v. Chiu (2014) 59 Cal.4th 155, remains available following PC 1172.6 enactment. Under Chiu, the NPC doctrine cannot support premeditated murder, and the trial court therefore correctly vacated the first degree murder conviction. Additionally, Chiu relief rendered the judgment nonfinal and the trial court properly applied ameliorative PC 186.22 changes to also vacate gang offense and enhancements. Finally, the Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal of the vacated first degree murder and gang charges after the prosecution failed to seek stay of trial proceedings pending habeas appeal (PC 1506) and failed to retry within…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Grinder
Case #: F088488
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 5 DCA
Opinion Date: 09/05/2025

The Court of Appeal holds that a writ of habeas corpus is an appropriate vehicle to challenge an initial MDO certification on the ground petitioner did not commit a qualifying offense. The court concludes that the rule announced in People v. Stevens (2015) 62 Cal.4th 325 that “the People may not prove the facts underlying the commitment offense (that are necessary to establish the qualifying offense) through a mental health expert’s opinion testimony” is not retroactive. Further, the court holds that defendant’s petition is not time barred even though he did not challenge his 2005 certification in a superior…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Brissette
Case #: F089603
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 5 DCA
Opinion Date: 06/23/2025

PC 1172.2 requires a single court to rule on compassionate release. Habeas petition denied after the superior court that imposed original indeterminate term granted compassionate release (PC 1172.2), but the superior court in a separate county that imposed a subsequent, consecutive term for in-prison offense (PC 1170.1(c)) denied compassionate release. PC 1172.2 requires a single court to rule on compassionate release. A defendant serving a subsequent sentence under PC 1170.1(c) is serving one sentence imposed by the second court, not two sentences. The two statutes can therefore be harmonized, as only the second court is the sentencing court for PC…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Duenas (2025) 111 Cal.App.5th 553
Case #: B335274
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 8
Opinion Date: 05/28/2025
Subsequent History: Review granted 7/30/25 (S291631)

After granting habeas relief regarding unauthorized portion of defendant’s sentence, trial court erred by refusing to conduct full resentencing and failing to apply AB 333 ameliorative changes to gang enhancements. Granting habeas relief on a portion of a sentence has the effect of vacating the entire sentence and rendering judgment nonfinal, thereby requiring a full resentencing that includes applying AB 333. Over a dissent, the majority rejected contrary holding in People v. Esquivias (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 969, review granted October 2, 2024,…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Tuilaepa
Case #: B310753
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 7
Opinion Date: 02/24/2025

Order to show cause issued in capital habeas proceeding. In non-capital holdings: (1) at the prima facie habeas stage, the trial court erred by “weighing” facts in defense experts’ declarations against rest of record and also “assessing the credibility” of the declarations; (2) the trial court’s legal errors did not suggest judicial bias requiring CCP 170.1 disqualification on remand.

The full opinion is available on the court’s website here:

View Full Summary