# John Espiredion Valerio v. Jackie Crawford, Director of the Department of Prisons E.K. McDaniel Warden

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · September 17, 2002 · 306 F.3d 742

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9495431

## Case

- **Full name:** John Espiredion VALERIO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jackie CRAWFORD, Director of the Department of Prisons; E.K. McDaniel, Warden, Respondents-Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** September 17, 2002
- **Citations:** 306 F.3d 742; 2002 Daily Journal DAR 10707; 2002 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9536; 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 19168; 2002 WL 31056609
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Fisher
- **Judges:** Schroeder, Reinhardt, O'Scannlain, Rymer, Nelson, Thomas, Graber, Fletcher, Fisher, Paez, Berzon
- **Cited by:** 134 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9495431

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that claims of ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of Sixth Amendment and withholding of exculpatory evidence in violation of Fourteenth Amendment “facially allege[d] violations of constitutional rights” and “clearly satisfied” Slack’s substantive component
- finding that the district court must inform the petitioner of a potential time-bar before the petitioner chooses whether to amend his mixed petition, in order to make that choice meaningful
- noting that we have authority to expand a certificate of appealability “to include additional issues when the district court has granted a [certificate] as to some but not all issues”
- explaining that default occurs at the time the first petition for post-conviction relief is filed

## Opinion text

FISHER, Circuit Judge,
Concurring.
Because neither party raised the application of Walton v. Arizona, 497 U.S. 639 , 110 S.Ct. 3047 , 111 L.Ed.2d 511 (1990), to “appellate factfinding” when the penalty-phase factfinder was a jury, and resolution of that issue is not necessary for our conclusion, I concur in the opinion of Judge Fletcher except section 11(C)(1).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9495431. Public record. Not legal advice.