Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Briand Williams, Petitioner v. Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County, et al.

No.

IN THE

SUPREME COURTOF THE UN1TEDSTATES

In Re

BRIAND WILLIAMS

(Your Name)

PETITIONER

-

vs.

California & Edmund G. Brown

RESPONDENT(S)

-

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO

THE SUPREME COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

(NAME OF COURT THAT LAST RULED ON MERITS OF YOUR CASE)

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

BRIAND WILLIAMS do

(Your Name)

do BRB WMS-LOGAN-ESQ; 9025 Wilshire Blvd 5th Fir

(Address)

Beverly Hills 90211-1867

(City, State, Zip Code)

None As of Yet but Eventuall

(Phone Number)

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED

Is a Plea Bargain Agreement in essence a contract between the defendant and the

prosecutor on behalf of the StateRWA And if so, can the defendant be relieved from the

restraints of the agreement when the Statute of Limitations is Jurisdictional in nature,

and where the court had lacked jurisdiction to prosecute the matter, Can a defendant

be forced and bound to the plea agreement where the Statute of Limitation is was MM

Longer in existence after three (3) years, three (3) months, andfifteen (15) days. See

Cal. Pen. Code §800-802 and §804; Statute of Limitations (1935) 23 Cal. L. Rev, at

4th 813, II1W1; People vs. Chapman (1975) 47

pp 525-527;In re Harris (1993) 5 C.

CA 3d 597; People vs. Hoffman (1933) 132 CA 60; People vs. Lynch (2010) 182 CA

4th

1262; People vs. Sup. CL (Meeks) (1991) 1 C. 4th 56, 66 IILi; United States vs.

Williams (1951) 341 US 58, 68; In reAlbertB. Demillo (1975) 14 C. 3d 598; People

vs. Miller (1859) 12 C. 291; People vs. Picetti (1899) 124 C. 361; Exparte Vice

(1901) 5 C. 153; People vs. McGee (1934) 1 C. 2d 611; People vs. Rose (1972) 28 CA

3d 414; People vs. Morgan (1977) 75 CA 3d 32; People vs. Chadd (1981) 28 3d 739;

People vs. Brice(1988) 206 CA 3d 111; People vs. Angel(1999) 70 Cal. 4th 1141;

People vs. Williams(1999) 21 C. 4th 335; Sanders vs. Sup. Ct.(1999) 76 CA 4th 609;

Kellett vs. Sup. CL (1966) 63 C. 2d 822; In re Davis (1936) 13 CA 2d 109; In re

McVickers (1946)29 C. 2d 264, 274, 280;In re Carmen _(1957)48 C. 2d 851, 854;

People vs. Crosby (1962) 58 C. 2d 713, 724-725; But, JJ1Under the Color of

Law Is the Defendant entitled under the Equal Protection Analysis and Due Process

Clause of our United States Constitution; entitled to an Evidentiary Hearing to make

a conclusive finding to determine whether the plea bargain between the defendant and

the People for the State of California can be enforced even after the State of Calif.

Statute of Limitations has long ran out

Once a plea agreement has been reached, can the District Attorney's office

Rene2e on the ORIGINAL agreement long after the defendant has full-filled his part

of the agreement well over twenty-two (22) years ago after the bargain was reached

and nearly twenty (20) years after the defendant completed the three (3) full years of

Formal Probation under that ORIGINAL agreementa Santobello vs. New York

(1971) 404 US 257, 260, 262; United States vs. Paiva (D.D.C. 1969) 294 F. supp.742;

People vs. Cortez (1970) 13 CA 3d 317; Buckley vs, Terhune(9th Cir. 2006) 441 F.3d

688,, 695; citing: Ricketts v. Adamson, (1987) 483 U.S. 1, 6 M In California, "[a]

negotiated plea agreement is a form of contract, and it is interpreted according to

general contract principles," People v. Shelton (2006) 37 Cal.4th 759, 767, and

"according to the same rules as other contracts," People v. Toscano (2004) 124 CA

4th 340, 344, (cited with approval in Shelton along with other California cases to

same effect dating back to 1982). Thus, under Adamson, California courts are

required to construe and interpret plea agreements in accordance with state contract

law. (See also, Brown vs. Poole(9th Cir. 2003)337 F.3d 1155, 1159.)

1pee

T9.1

Did the agents, representatives, (DA's office) for the State of California, Revoke

the plea bargain agreement without the defendant's knowledge after the first fourteen

(14) years from what the defendant had relied upon in the acceptance from the

promises made to him back on July 16th, 1996 at the time of sentencing, which was to

plead "YES" to a 261.5(c) PC and to be released on that very same day And, can the

defendant now be charged continuously with "failure to urdate registration Annually"

where there has never been any [I]nitial or Previous registration to uvdate from ever

in tile cletenclant's entire 1ite

1 he term "J±ULLUWIIV(i KLbL,iLRAiiUJV" is

meaningless when there is {INO!! !1} REGISTRATION to follow. And, Does this PreIndictment Delay which is in Violation if the Due Process & Equal Protection entitle

the defendant to [w]ithdraw his July 15th 2016 Plea?

Was the defendant entitled under the United States Constitutions' VI and XIV

Amendment to a competent appellate attorney and a record that would permit a

meaningful presentation of appellate claims, and that by the attorney's failure to

appreciate or correct the shortcomings of the record constituted the inadequate

assistance of counsel on appeal

(Hewitt vs. Helms (1983) 459 US 460 at pA.66; In

4th

re Freeman (2006) 38 C.

630; Delzell vs. Day (1950) 36 C. 2d 349,

Was the defendant denied under the Fourteenth Amendment by the State to fullfill its duty to provide appellant with a complete and effective appellant record?

Was the defendant put in any unfavorable appellate proceedings that were

ftmdamentally unfair in contravention of the Due Process Clauses of the Federal

Constitution

Was the defendant deprived of a adequate competent active advocate assistance

by appointed appellate counsel by right under the sixth amendment?

Was the defendant deprived and denied any right(s) under California's

Independent Constitution? (Johnson vs. Zerbst (1938) 304 US 458 at pg. 464.)

Is a defendant denied a Due Process right to have a Habeas Corpus Petition filed

concurrently with his direct appeal by his appointed appellate counsel when the issues

and facts that warrants' the filing for the petition is surrounded by issues being

[elxtrinsic from the trial court transcripts because the transcripts were not augmented

(devoid-missing) in order to raise the defendant's issues Re: Ineffective Assistance of

Trial Counsel; Breach of the Original 1996 Plea Bargain; Actual and Factual

Demonstrably Innocence, Failure to give Advisement about the Constitutional Rights

Prior to or after obtaining an Induced Plea; And where No! Reports Exists in the

court records for a Factual Basis? (e.g. Probation-Police Reports, etc.)

-.

Was the defendant denied an Equal Opportunity Protection under both the State

and Federal Constitution when he filed a Writ Petition for Review to the States' high

b2J

court Re: Ineffective Assistance of Appellate Counsel for Counsel's Failure to raise

the Plethora of Arguable Issues by Habeas Corpus due to missing court transcripts

(see CRC—Rule 12 orbyRule 10(c); People vs. Gaston (1978) 20 C. 3d 476, 481484 fn.ii) that were not provided on Direct Appeal

and, "Did the Supreme

Court of California cause further Prejudicial Miscarriage of Justice when it failed to

address the core issue raised by the defendant Re: Ineffective Assistance of Appellate

Counsel on Direct Appeal by way of Habeas Corpus Petition"

Is a Defendant denied the Guaranteed Federal and State Constitutional Rights

of Due Process when the California Appellate Project who appoints the appellate

Counsel on Appeal Denies the Appellate Attorney(s) the access to file a Habeas

Corpus Petition for any Defendant without getting permission to do so by their office

firs7 And, [If So], by [d]enying a Writ Petition to be filed [d]oes it foreclose all or

any opportunity for a defendant to put forth an adequate presentation of his [extrinsic

four corner issues] from the trial court into the appellate district court, and the

Supreme Court of California to determine and make a conclusive determination of

factual issues outside of the record already not presented on a direct appeal for a

layman (Blackledge vs. Allison, (1977) 431 US 63, 71-83; Harris vs. Nelson, (1969)

394 US 286; Townsend vs. Sam (1963) 372 US 293, 295-322; US vs. Carter (4 h Cir

1972) 454 F.2d 426, 428; People vs. Sumstine (1984) 36 C. 3d 909, 920 FIN 10. cal.

ConsL Art. I. Sec. 7. subd (a) (b): Cal. Pen. Code §1002-1010; People vs. Trujillo

(2016) 244 CA 4th 106; People vs. Barton (1978) 21 C. 3d 513, 517-518; Entsminger

vs. Iowa (1967) 386 US 748, #N1]; People vs. Monaghan (1894) 102 C. 229; People

4th

vs. Goldman (2014) 225 CA 950; CRC-Rules 8.860-8.861 subds (2)(3)(8)(12)(A)

and CRC-Rules 8.865 -8.867

In the most recent United States Supreme Court Case No. 16-8255 JTI'IcCoy s.

y7

[Louisiana: (5-14-2018) Does the very same principles apply to a defendant on a direct

appeal where counsel for the appellant does not follow the appellant's desires and

deviates from what the defendant is appealing and from what he has written out on his

court filed [Notice ofppeal Form] that outlines the issues to be brought forth before

the Court of Appeals[??? (see U.S. vs. Cronic (1984) 466 US 648; Davis vs. State Bar

(1983)33 C. 3d 231; Rojas v. Unknown (2017) 2017 US Dist. Lexis 75138,

LJTrevino v. Thaler (2013) 569 US 413; Martinez v. Ryan (2012) 566 US 1; Buck

vs. Davis (2017) 137 S. Ct. 759; U.S. vs. Grjfjj' (9th Cir. 1990) 895 F.2d 561 Cuyler v.

Sullivan (1980) 466 US 335; In re Smith (1970) 3 C. 3d 192, 196; People v. Pena

(1972) 25 CA 3d 414; People v. Mendoza-Tello (1997) 15 C. 4th 264; In re Hochberg

(1970) 2 C. 3d 870; In re Andrew B. (1995) 40 CA 4th 825 fn.14; People vs. Corona

(1978) 80 CA 3d 684; In re Banks (1971) 4 C. 3d 377; Delgado v. Lewis (9th Cir.

1988) 223 F.3d 976; Carter vs. Illinois (1946) 329 US 173; Turner vs. Duncan (9th

Cir. 1988) 158 F.3d 449; Davis vs. Kramer (9th Cir. 1999) 1999 US App. Lexis 918;

United States vs. Gonzalez-Lopez (2006) 547 US 140.)

f4ft~

-

Was the Defendant denied both of his Federal and State Constitutional Rights

by the trial court's ruling denying two (2) Demurrer Motions because the defendant

was not under actual Custodial Restraints from his July l61, 1996 sentence although

the defendant was under the restraints as a result of the Collateral Consequences

from the (Predicate 1996 offense) that put the defendant under the Microscope of

Parole, Bail and on O.R. Release all at the very same time? Should both of the filed

March 1 7", 2016 and the filed April 14th, 2016 Demurrer issues been addressed

itt?5[Caiãfas vs. LVlië (i968)3iUS23T4237-242Sibron vs. N.Y.(1968) 392 US 40; People vs. Succop (1967) 67 Cal. 2d 785, 789-790; In re Black

(1967) 66 C. 2d 881, 886-887; (a) Because of the "disabilities or burdens [which] may

flow from" petitioner's conviction, he has "a substantial stake in the judgment of

conviction which survives the satisfaction of the sentence imposed on him." Fiswick

vs. United States (1946) 329 U. S. 211, 222; (b) 28 U.S.C. § 2243. Parker vs. Ellis

(1960) 362 U. S. 574 overruled. Pp. 391 U. S. 238-240. Nowakowski vs. Maroney

(1967) 386 U. S. 542] based upon the two (2) signed bills by Governor Brown AB813

and 5B1134 that amended the Cal. Pen. Code §1473 et seq. for filing. See also In re

Dixon (1953) 41 C. 2d 756, 762-763;

Was it a "Fundamental Miscarriage of Justice" and a Violation of the

defendant's Federal and State Constitutional Due Process Rights for the state appellate

court Justices to not address the Appellant's arguments and complaints regarding the

"overt bias" Prosecutorial and Judicial Hostile Misconduct by the trial court's officers

that materially affected [his] substantial rights as a party pursuant to CCP §630.09

(a)( 1 )(3) and under Post-Trial Motions §551.180 listed up under the Cal. Forms of

Pleading and Practice Annotated (i.e. Miller vs. Pate (1967) 386 US 1

)

When a defendant on direct appeal has a multiple (triple) layers of ill will help

from court appointed non-effective assistant of counsel claims (IATC's) that arise at

various levels in his Judicial Proceedings (including with appointed appellate counsel)

and the complete case file is "silent to the records on the matters" is it a "Fundamental

Miscarriage of Justice" in violation of a Defendant's right to Due Process and Equal

Protection of both the Federal and State Constitution, when the appellate court

Justices' abused their discretion and all agreed to dismiss the defendant's habeas

corpus petition rather than to consolidate the petition with the defendant's direct

appeal as cited in "People vs. Mendoza-Tello (1997) 15 Cal. 4th 264?"

Was the defendant denied any Substantial rights when he filed a habeas corpus

writ petition to be heard concurrently with the opening brief to argue the extrinsic

merits inside of the four corners of a completely missing Record on the matters of

Pen Code §1203.72 "Consideration of Probation Report = ; also regarding No4!:

Factual Basis (People vs. Willard (2007) 154 CA 4th 129) existed for the { Under

Duress Coerced Plea}; An Invalid "Cruz Waiver" extracted by the trial court (People

vs. Herbert (2007) 156 CA 4'1114,

);Appellant's challenge to the Validity

of the ill-gotten plea itself (Gall vs. U.S. (2007) 522 US 38; People vs. Munoz (2006)

138 CA 4th 860, 866, 871) and the Improper Denial to discharge retained counsel

(Chapman vs. Calf. (1967) 386 US 18, 23) when the defendant's appointed counsel

on appeal would not file any Writ Petition in the defendant's behalf that could have

satisfied the Federal Constitutional Standards but, instead abandoned the defendant

during the direct appeal from the denial of a Certified of Probable Cause Motion that

the trial court jurist didn't want to allow access to the court proceedings transcripts

7)

Viö1ad15ythThppoihtëd

appellate counsel for his failure in not filing the proper writ petition on the defendant's

behalf that should have addressed the missing extrinsic issues when ninety-nine point

nine percent

of the defendant's appeal dealt with the matters that were

during the trial court proceedings

Was the defendant abandoned on direct appeal by his court appointed appellate

counsel when the defendant wrote and gave every arguable issue to his counsel to

raise and file a perfected writ for proper appellate review but when the appointed

counsel deviates from what the defendant is appealing from does the matter now also

become a Strickland vs. Washington (1984) 466 U 668, 692 issue against appointed

appellate counsel

(People vs. Gzikowski (1982) 32 C. 3d 580, 586; People vs.

Ramirez (2006) 39 C,

4th

398, 423.)

When a defendant is seeking relief as a "class of one" under traditional Equal

Protection Analysis and when the appeal record us both] Silent and Devoid of post

historical facts, Is it still a "Fundamental Miscarriage of Justice" and a Violation of a

defendant's Federal and State Constitutional Due Process Rights for the state appellate

court Justices to not address the Equal Protection issues raised by the defendant by &

through a Habeas Corpus or Mandate Petition??? (Willowbrook vs. Olech (2000) 528

US 562, 564; and SeaRiver Martime vs. Mineta (91h Cir. 2002) 309 F. 3d 662.)

When a defendant raises his long standing claim of his "Actual and Factual

Innocence" and offers proof that he can demonstrably prove his Factual Innocence

without the help from the [Devoid Silent Record] on Direct Appeal, was it another

"Fundamental Miscarriage of Justice" and a Violation of the defendant's Federal and

State Constitutional Due Process Rights when the state court Justices' refused to

"Take a Second Look" as required in McQuiggin vs. Perkins (2013) 133 S. Ct. 1924

LIST OF PARTIES

[IAll parties appear in the caption of the case on the cover page.

11 parties do not appear in the caption of the case on the cover

A list of

all parties to the proceeding in the court whose judgment is the subject

petition is as follows:

Governor Edmund Gerald Brown, Jr. State of California Capital Building

Room 1173, Sacramento, California 95814

Attn. Xavier Becerra Atty. General's Office, 300 S. Spring St. 18t. Floor

Los Angeles, California 90013

-

Supreme Court of California, 350 McAllister Street, Room 1295,

San Francisco, California 94102-4797

Second Appellate District Court, Ronald Reagan Building, 300 S. Spring

Street, 2d Floor North Tower, Los Angeles, California 90013-1204

-

Los Angeles Superior Court-LASC, 210 W. Temple Street, Clerk's Office

Los Angeles, California 90012

Los Angeles District Attorney's Office, 210 W. Temple Street, District

Attorney's Office, Los Angeles, California 90012

Briand Williams, do BRB WMS-LOGAN-ESQ., 9025 Wilshire Blvd.

Penthouse Suite 500, 5th Floor, Beverly Hills, California 90211-189

TABLE OF CONTENTS

.1

OPINIONS BELOW

JURISDICTION...................................................................................................................

CONSTiTUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED .................................

STATEMENTOF THE CASE ............................................................................................

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT ..........................................................................

CONCLUSION....................................................................................................................

INDEX TO APPENDICES

APPENDIX A Supreme Court Of California Decision

APPENDIX B

Second Appellate District Court Decision

APPENDIX C

Ineffective Assistance of Appointed Appellate & Trial Counsel(s) Cases

APPENDIX D

APPENDIX E

APPENDIX F

TR.,q,okfto—

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED

CASES

PAGE NUMBER

In re Harris (1993) 5 C. 4" 8135 1Iftf1JI; People vs. Chapman (1975) 47 CA 3d 597;

People vs. Hoffman (1933) 132 CA 60; People vs. Lynch (2010) 182 CA 4th 1262;

People vs. Sup. Ct. (Meeks) (1991) 1 C. 4th 56,66

Exparte Vice (1901) 5 C. 153;

United States vs. Williams (1951) 341 US 58, 68; People vs. Miller (1859) 12 C. 291;

In re Albert B. Demillo (1975) 14 C. 3d 598; People vs. Picetti (1899) 124 C. 361;

People vs. McGee (1934) 1 C. 2d 611; People vs. Rose (1972) 28 CA 3d 414;

People vs. Morgan (1977)75 CA 3d 32;People vs. Chadd (1981) 28 3d 739;

People vs. Brice (1988) 206 CA 3d 111; People vs. Angel (1999) 70 Cal. 4th 1141;

People vs. Williams (1999) 21 C. 4th 335; Sanders vs. Sup. Ct. (1999) 76 CA 4th 609;

Kellett vs. Sup. CL (1966) 63 C. 2d 822; In re Davis (1936) 13 CA 2d 109;

In reMcVickers (1946)29 C. 2d 264, 274, 280;

In re Carmen (1957)48 C. 2d 851, 854;

People vs. Crosby (1962) 58 C. 2d 713, 724-725;

People vs. Cortez (1970) 13 CA 3d 317;

Santobello vs. New York (1971) 404 US 257, 260, 262;

United States vs. Paiva (D.D.C. 1969) 294 F. supp.742;

Buckley vs, Terhune (9th Cir. 2006) 441 F.3d 688, 695;

Ricketts v. Adamson, (1987) 483 U.S. 1, 6

People v. Shelton (2006) 37 C. 4th 759, 767,

People v. Toscano (2004) 124 CA 4th 340, 344;

Brown vs. Poole(9th Cir. 2003) 337 F.3d 1155, 1159;

STATUTES AND RULES

Cal. Pen. Code §800-802 and §804;

Cal. Pen. Code §261.5(c)

OTHER

'ft IaLL

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED

CASES

PAGE NUMBER

Hewitt vs. Helms (1983) 459 US 460 at p.466;In re Freeman (2006) 38 C. 4th 630;

Delzell vs. Day (1950) 36 C. 2d 349,

Johnson vs. Zerbst (193 8) 304 US 458 at pg. 464;

People vs. Gaston (1978) 20 C. 3d476, 1484jfn.1,_4;

Blackledge vs. Allison, (1977) 431 US 63, 71-83; Harris vs. Nelson, (1969) 394 US 286;

Townsend vs. Sam (1963) 372 US 293, 295-322;

US vs. Carter (4th Cir 1972) 454 F.2d 4265 428;

People vs. Sumstine (1984) 36 C. 3d 909,920#—

N10., ;

4th

People vs. Trujillo (2016) 244 CA

106; In re Smith (1970) 3 C. 3d 192, 196;

People vs. Barton (1978)21 C. 3d 513, 517-518;

Entsminger vs. Iowa (1967) 386 US 748, iIN 1

People vs. Monaghan (1894) 102 C. 229; People vs. Goldman (2014) 225 CA 4th 950;

Coy vs. Louis&z (2018) Case No. 16-8255; U.S. vs. Cronic (1984) 466 US 648;

Davis vs. State Bar (1983) 33 C. 3d 231; Cuyler v. Sullivan (1980) 466 US 335;

Rojas v. Unknown (2017) 2017 US Dist. Lexis 75138, Section-C:

Trevino v. Thaler (2013) 569 US 413; Martinez v. Ryan (2012) 566 US 1;

Buck vs. Davis (2017) 137 S. Ct. 759; U.S. vs. Grffy (91h Cir. 1990) 895 F.2d 561;

People v. Pena (1972) 25 CA 3d 414; People v. Mendoza-Tello (1997) 15 C. 4th 264;

In re Hochberg (1970) 2 C. 3d 870; In re Andrew B. (1995) 40 CA 4"'825 fn.14;

People vs. Corona (1978) 80 CA 3d 684; In re Banks (1971) 4 C. 3d 377;

Delgado v. Lewis (9th Cir. 1988) 223 F.3d 976; Carter vs. Illinois (1946) 329 US 173;

Turner vs. Duncan (9th Cir. 1988) 158 F.3d 449;

Davis vs. Kramer (9th Cir. 1999) 1999 US App. Lexis 918;

United States vs. Gonzalez-Lopez (2006) 547 US 140.

STATUTES AND RULES

CRC Rule 10(C) and Rule 12);

Cal. Pen. Code §10O2-1010; Re: Demurrers;

CRC-Rules 8.860-8.861 subds (2)(3)(8)( 12)(A);

CRC-Rules 8.865 -8.867;

-

OTHER

PiiaL

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED

CASES

PAGE NUMBER

Carafas vs. LaVallee (1968) 391 US 234, 237-242; Sibron vs. N.Y. (1968) 392 US 40;

People vs. Succop (1967) 67 Cal. 2d 785, 789-790;

In re Black (1967) 66 C. 2d 881, 886-887;

Fiswick vs. United States (1946) 329 U. S. 211, 222;

Parker vs. Ellis (1960) 362 U. S. 574 overruled. Pp. 391 U. S. 238-240;

Nowakowski vs. Maroney (1967) 386 U. S. 542;

In re Dixon (1953) 41 C. 2d 756, 762-763; Miller vs. Pate (1967) 386 US 1

;

People vs. Mendoza-Tello (1997) 15 Cal. 4" 264?;

PeOple vs. Willard (2007) 154 CA 4" 1329;

People vs. Herbert (2007) 156 CA 4" 1114, 1I{NJI;

Gall vs. U.S. (2007) 522 US 38; People vs. Munoz (2006) 138 CA 4" 860, 866, 871;

Chapman vs. Calif. (1967) 386 US 18,23;

Strickland vs. Washington (1984) 466 U 668, 692;

People vs. Gzikowski (1982) 32 C. 3d 580, 586;

People vs. Ramirez (2006) 39 C, 0 398, 423;

Willowbrook vs. Olech (2000) 528 US 562, 564;

SeaRiver Martime vs. Mineta (91l Cir. 2002)309 F. 3d 662.

McQuiggin vs. Perkins (2013) 133 S. Ct. 1924.

STATUTES AND RULES

28 U.S.C. § 2243.

Cat Pen. Code §1473 et seq.

CCP §630.09 (a)(1)(3)

Post-Trial Motions §551.180 listed up under the Cal. Forms of Pleading and Practice

Annotated;

Pen Code 1203.72

Pen rode r1,bwd. bi1Q

Pen. Code

suf'a

Cal. PC §29.0.018 subd.(K)(L)

Tue Law Revision Commission's Reference to the Z'Ioiiei Pen. Code §1.06 subd (5)

OTHER

Assembly Bill 813

Senate Bill 1134

PTL2kL

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Petitioner respectfully prays that a writ of certiorari issue to review the judgment below.

OPINIONS BELOW

[1 For cases from federal courts:

The opinion of the United States court of appeals appears at Appendixto

the petition and is

; or,

[ ] reported at

has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,

is unpublished.

The opinion of the United States district court appears at Appendixto

the petition and is

[1 reported at

; or,

[1 has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,

[1 is unpublished.

*For cases from state courts:

The opinion of the highest state court to review the merits appears at

AppendixA to the petition and is

[1 reported at

; or,

has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,

s unpublished.

9

The opinion of the SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT COURT

court appears at AppendixB

petition and is

[1 reported at

; or,

has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,

s unpublished.

ft

V

1.

to the

JURISDICTION

[1 For cases from federal courts:

The date on which the United States Court of Appeals decided my case

was_______________________

[-1--No-p etit-ion-for--rehearing-was-timely-fi-ie-d-in--my-case

[1 A timely petition for rehearing was denied by the United States Court of

Appeals on the following date:

and a copy of the

order denying rehearing appears at Appendix_______

,

[1 An extension of time to file the petition for a writ of certiorari was granted

to and including

in Application No.A_______

(date) on

(date)

The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U. S. C. § 1254(1).

or cases from state courts:

#

The date on which the highest state court decided my case wasit1LL4i2O18.

A copy of that decision appears at AppendixA

.

[1 A timely petition for rehearing was thereafter denied on the following date:

and a copy of the order denying rehearing

appears at Appendix_______

[1 An extension of time to file the petition for a writ of certiorari was granted

to and including

Application No. A_______

(date) on

(date) in

The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U. S. C. § 1257(a).

I Ry=?rc.I'll q^11

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED

Statute of Limitations (1935) 23 Cal. L. Rev, at pp 525-527;

United States Constitutions' VI Amendment

United States Constitutions' XIV Amendment

Cal. C'onst. Art I, Sec. 7. subd (a) (b);

Q ee

f?2 15

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Back on July 16th, 1996, the Petitioner, BRIAND WILLIAMS, did enter into a Plea Agreement

with the District Attorney's Office through is court appoint attorney from the County of Los Angeles

Public Defender's Office name John M. Martinez, SBN #69161 in Case No. BA130843 to One (1) Count

to a Charge of PC §261.5(c) for time-serve with credit of 416 day to a misdemeanor Iwobblerl charge;

three (3) yrs formal probation, and pay a $200.00 Fine, Obey all laws and attend school or work and stay

out of trouble. No! Suspended Prison sentence was given. (i.e. See Pen. Code _7h7Lt(4 People

v. Hamilton (1948) 33 Cal. 2d 45, 49 [198 P.2d 873]; Pen. Code r§IJ20Jff Th7L()People vs. Glee

(2000)82 Cal. App. 4t} 99, 102-103, 105-106; People v. Bishop (1992) 11 Cal. App. 4th 1125, 1130 [15

Cal. Rptr. 2d 539]; People v. Disibio (1992) 7 Cal. App. 4th Supp. 1, 6 [9 Cal. Rptr. 2d 20]; City of

Victorville v. County of San Bernardino (1991) 233 Cal. App. 3d 1312, 1314 [285 Cal. Rptr. 206]

On August 4", 1998 a progress follow-up probation hearing was held to see how Petitioner was

doing. Probation was continued on the same terms and conditions as were placed upon the Petitioner.

On July 16'h, 1999 the Petitioner, herein had completed the full three (3) year of formal probation

under the terms and conditions without any issues.

On October 28th, 2010 Petitioner, was charged with a violation of PC §290.012(a) for a dismissed

1996 Case No. BA117193. under Case No. BA33 7243, even though this was not possible pursuant to the

Cal. PC §290.018 subd.(K) which is now under subd. (L) In the 2017 Penal Code Book. (See

Petitioner's complete case history under USDC CV- l 1-08232; CV-12-05824 and CV-16-1384 for all

events, references and prior outcomes.) Petitioner lost the trial on March

2011 in Case Number

BA337243 and [was not ordered by the court trial Judge Clifford L. Klien to register for any charge(s).

On August 2", 2011 DDA Brentford J. Ferreira, SBN #113762 Deputy-in-Charge over the Writ

of Habeas Corpus Litigation Team had made a Judicial Admission under the penalty of perjury to the

trial court on paper by stating Quote: "{In the instance case, we, have No! Transcripts of the sentencing

hearing. None, could be found in the court's file or the District Attorney's file. Nor is there evidence of

any minute order reciting an advisement by the court of the registration requirement. There is nothing

in the probation report putting Petitioner on Notice of the Registration Requirement}" as a condition

of the July 16th, 1996 plea agreement. (People vs. Trausch (1995) 36 Cal. App. 4" 1239, 1243, 1246.)

On November 16"', 2012 Petitioner, was charged again in Case No. BA404996 for the same type

of alleged violation but the [charge was dismissed] on January 29", 2016 but was then was re-filed after

the Statute of Limitation hadran out by three (3) yrs, three (3), month and fifteen (15) days for the refiled Case No. BA443387 but not in Case No BA432281 for the same one charge, which was dismissed.

(j(

On or about January 20, 2016 two (2) differently never seen before charges having been filed

after the Statute of Limitations outside of Pen. Code §804 (c); in clear violation of Penal Code §1009;

there was M Signed Probable Cause Determination (Declaration); although this was a new re-filed Case

No #BA443387 from BA404996 the clock to prosecute had began back on November 20". 2012 when

the defendant had Originally been wrongfully charged over three (3) years prior, When now the New

Felony ComvlainLonitsfaceJndicatedihaLtheactionwasJimebarred._TheTriaLcouitwas4imrnediate1y

without Jurisdiction to prosecute at all]. (See, The Law Revision Commission's Reference to the Model

Pen. Code §1.06 subd (5))

On March 17, 2016 and April 14th 2016 Petitioner had filed to separate Demurrers to address

the Statute of Limitation matter yet at each stage on March 29th, 2016 before the Preliminary Hearing the

First Demurrer was denied without giving any reason by the Preliminary Hearing Jurist before the Prelim

hearing took place that day and again on June

2016 the Second Demurrer was also denied by the trial

court Jurist without any reason what so ever on the court records.

On September 26", 2017 Petitioner was appointed an Ineffective Appellate Counsel on direct

appeal by the name of Steven A. Brody, SBN #271616.

Petitioner kept writing to his appointed appellate counsel and telling him that there were Five (5)

sets of missing court trial transcripts regarding the matters herein and that Petitioner should be entitled to

have an Evidentiary Hearing on the Judicial Misconduct in itself as required by prior court history when

Transcripts are not available. See Case Authorities: (Blackledge vs. Allison, (1977) 431 US 63, 71-83;

Harris vs. Nelson, (1969) 394 US 286; Townsend vs. Sam (1963) 372 US 293, 295-322; US vs. Carter

(4th Cir 1972) 454 F.2d 426, 428 and

People vs. Sumstine (1984) 36 Cal. 3d 909, 920 Hi 1O)

On January 300, 2018 Petitioner's Ineffective Appointed Appellate Counsel files an Opening

Brief instead of filing a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in the Petitioner's behalf to address the issues.

On May 7", 2018 Petitioner files a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus to be heard concurrently

with his appeal and was given a Case No. B283473.

On May 24', 2018 the Justices of the Second Appellate District Court, denied the Habeas Corpus

Petition B289847 without considering it concurrently with the direct appeal which was not heard as of yet

On June 4", 2018 Petitioner's Petition for Review is granted to be filed in the Supreme Court of

California and was given a Case No. S249150.

On July 11", 2018 the Supreme Court of California, denies the Petition for Review.

On October 4/h, 2018 Petitioner, is mailing off this Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United

States Supreme Court in Washington, DC.

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION

Because it would be the right concise act to do in light of the information presented herein.

"A denial by a State Court of a Writ of Habeas Corpus to one who claims that the judgment under

which he is imprisoned was rendered in violation of his Constitutional Rights is review by the Supreme

Court of the United States as necessarily involving a Federal Question. State Court's, equally with Federal

vs.

O'Grady (1941) 312 US 329, 334.

"An accused may have been denied the assistance of counsel under circumstances which constitute

an infringement of the United States Constitution. If the State affords No! Mode for redressing that wrong,

he may come to the Federal Courts for relief...." Carter vs. Illinois (1946) 329 US 173, 174-175 HN6.

InBowen vs. Johnson (1939) 306 US 19-30 IIN9, 10 citing: "Ex parte Nielsen (1889) 131 US 176,

183 [33 L. Ed 118, 120, 9 S. Ct. 672] and the remedy of Habeas Corpus may be needed to release the

prisoner from a punishment imposed by a court manifestly without Jurisdiction to pass judgment. It [MUST]

[n] ever be forgotten that the Writ of Habeas Corpus is the precious safeguard of personal liberty and there is

no higher duty than to maintain it unimpaired. (See, also In re Bonner (1894) 151 US 242, 26.)"

Ex parte Lange (1874) 85 US 163, "The rule requiring resort to appellate procedure when the trial

court has determined its own jurisdiction of an offense is not a rule denying the power to issue a Writ of

Habeas Corpus when it appears that never the less the trial court was without jurisdiction. The rule is not

one defming power but one which relates to the appropriate exercise power." "Throughout the Centuries the

Great Writ has been the shield of personal freedom insuring liberty to persons illegally detained. Respecting

the state's grant of a right to test their detention, the Fourteenth Amendment weighs the interest of rich or

poor criminals in equal scale, and its hand extends as far to each." Smith vs. Bennett (1961) 365 US 708,

713 HN9.

Miller vs. Pate (1967) 386 US 1 N2, "More than 30 years ago this court held that the Fourteenth

Amendment cannot tolerate a State Criminal Conviction obtained by the knowing use of false evidence.

Mooney vs. Holohan (1935)294 US 103. There has been No! Deviation from that established principle.

Napue vs. Illinois (1959) 360 US 264; Pyle vs. Kansas (1942) 317 US 213; cf. Alcorta vs. Texas (1957)

355 US 28. There can be no retreat from that principle here."

"The United States Supreme Court holds allegation of a pro se complaint to less stringent standards

than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. A complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim

unless it appears beyond doubt that the Plaintiff can prove No! Set of facts in support of his claim which

would entitle him to relief." "We conclude that he is entitled to an opportunity to offer proof." Haines vs.

Kerner (1942) 404 US 519 RN 1, 2, 3.

As Chief Justice Burger has written: "[Under] our adversary system an Appellate Court cannot

function efficiently without lawyers to present whatever there is to be said on behalf of an appellant,

however meager his claims may be, So that the court can make an informal appraisal." (Johnson vs. United

States (1966) 360 F. 2d 844, 847 [124 App. D.C. 29] concurring opinion.) Cited In People vs. Smith, (1970)

3 Cal. 3d 192.

"The Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel is the right to the effective assistance of counsel."

McMann vs. Richardson (1970) 397 US 759, 771 N* 14, 90 S. Ct. 1441, 25 L. Ed. 2d 763

~&11'le

CONCLUSION

The petition for a writ of certiorari should be granted.

Respectfully submPed,

Date: October 4th 2018

-Ij