Habeas

Name: McIntosh v. Superior Court of San Diego County
Case #: D084379
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 03/28/2025

The trial court erroneously denied defendant’s request for appointed counsel in his habeas corpus petition raising RJA claims based on the ground that he did not meet the prima facie showing required for an order to show cause. PC 1473(e) imposes a duty on the trial court to assess a request for counsel independently of the court’s duty to assess whether to issue an OSC. To remedy the error, the Court of Appeal construed defendant’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus as a petition for writ of mandate and granted the petition, directing the trial court to conduct the…

View Full Summary
Name: Bemore v. Superior Court of San Diego County
Case #: D084579
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 02/18/2025

Trial court erred in appointing the Public Defender as habeas counsel on petitioner's RJA habeas claims, where the Public Defender breached its duty of loyalty. The Court of Appeal granted Bemore’s petition for writ of mandate and directed the court to appoint petitioner's requested attorneys to represent him on an RJA habeas petition challenging his convictions filed in superior court. PC 987.2 is the exclusive mechanism for the selection of appointed counsel on noncapital, postconviction RJA claims in the superior court. Under PC 987.2, the Public Defender was “unavailable” because it represented conflicting interests and…

View Full Summary
Name: R.D. v. Superior Court of Sacramento County
Case #: C100422
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 02/19/2025

Juvenile court did not err under the RJA when it declined to dismiss or reduce petitioner's charge or impose another remedy. When denying R.D.’s request for electronic monitoring release, a visiting judge referenced R.D. as a “‘gang banger,” commented that gang involvement was “in his blood,” “in his culture,” and “he can’t get it out of his system."  One week later, the regularly assigned judge granted the request for electronic monitoring release and found a violation of the RJA but imposed no further remedy. While the RJA does not preclude defendants from seeking relief…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Serrano (2024) 106 Cal.App.5th 276, review granted
Case #: C100856
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 10/29/2024
Subsequent History: Review granted 1/15/25 (S288202)

The Court of Appeal holds that the Racial Justice Act permits a defendant to file a stand-alone postjudgment discovery motion before filing a habeas corpus petition. Additionally, an order denying a postjudgment discovery motion under the Act is not appealable, rather a defendant’s remedy is by writ of mandate. [Editor's Note: This court expressly disagreed with In re Montgomery (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 1062, which held that a trial court lacks authority to entertain a postjugment discovery…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Montgomery (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 1062
Case #: D083970
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 09/06/2024
Subsequent History: Petition for review granted 12/11/24 (S287339)

The Racial Justice Act (RJA) does not authorize a freestanding motion for discovery; it only authorizes discovery in a pending proceeding under section 745 (a).  The RJA did not create an exception to the general rule that there is no statutory authority for a trial court to entertain a postjudgment motion that is unrelated to any proceeding then pending before the court. The trial court’s denial of the discovery motion was therefore not an appealable order, because the trial court had properly summarily denied defendant’s related petition for writ of habeas corpus for failure to state a prima facie case.…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Vigil (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 688 – Depublished
Case #: F085762
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 5 DCA
Opinion Date: 08/28/2024
Subsequent History: Ordered depublished (S287213)

The 5DCA holds the trial court lacked jurisdiction to consider the defendant’s prematurely filed motion for relief under the Racial Justice Act (RJA), finding the defendant, whose case is final, and who is currently serving a prison sentence for murder, falls within the last phase of retroactive eligibility, commencing January 1, 2026 (PC 745(j)(5)). The 5DCA determined the defendant did not fall under section 745(j)(3), which provides relief to those “currently serving a sentence in the state prison or in a county jail pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170, or committed to the Division of Juvenile Justice for a…

View Full Summary