Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Briand Williams, Petitioner v. California

No.

I i3 —

IN THE

O R I G" d N A L

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Supreme Cour, U.S.

FILED

In Re

'

JL L

DEC

n

u

.Wo

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

BRIAND WILLIAMS

(Your Name)

PETITIONER

-

vs.

California & Edmund G. Brown, Jr.

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

(Your Name)

do BRB WMS-LOGAN-ESQ; 9025 Wilshire Blvd

(Address)

Beverly Hills 90211-1867

(City, State, Zip Code)

None As of Yet but Eventually

(Phone Number)

51h Fir

PJAL

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED

Q.. rL

When the Appointed Counsel on Direct appeal is a thorn to the perfection of that

appeal and falls below the standard of Strickland vs. Washington (1984) 466 U 668,

692, Was the Defendant herein Prejudice by counsel's Failure to raise the Appellant's

Plethora of Arguable Issues that the Appellant himself had written out and filed on his

"NOTICE OF APPEAL" Form CR -120 to which his "unknown appointed counsel"

had received during those criiicaLslaes of the appeal process to bring to the attention

of the court which counsel did no1{fl Was the defendant prejudice by counsel's failure

to do so? Because Ws as counsel was absent from the most critical stares of the

appellate proceedings for the defendant in not arguing those issuesjniiis defense.

See U.S. vs. Cronic (1984) 466 US 648, was the appellant denied more than just his

Due Process & Equal Protection as guaranteed under the 6th and 14th Amendmentj

Once a defendant files a 1382 PC Motion to Dismiss while in custody after

getting any response back from the District Attorney's Office to the prior filed 1381

PC Motion Demand for Trial and since the Prison officials signed & dated the back

of the 1382 Motion envelope for mailing and the motion is received by both the

District Attorney's office & the Master Calendar Supervising Judge of the Courthouse

where the case is pending out of as well, "Is the Defendant entitled to the relief sought

from the 1382 Motion even after the District Attorney's Office pulls the Defendant out

to court from Prison to answer to the pending charges, but afterihe20days has lapse

and completely after the time had long expired for the State Officials to respond???"

Was the Defendant Prejudice by the fact that the State of California Denied the

Defendant his rights under the Equal Protection and Due Process Laws of both the

Federal and State Constitutions when Judge Jeffrey G. Bennett refused to dismiss the

case against the defendant when the District Attorney admitted on the record that

they /"did not"/ get the defendant out of custody & into court in time to prosecute the

case prior to receiving the timely filed § 1382 Motion & long after receiving the [13811

Did the State of California Violate the Federal and State Rights of the defendant

when it re-filed the very same criminal charge §532(a) for a second (2nd) time on

August 261h, 2016 after it had already been dismissed two (2) yrs subsequent to the

time of expiration for the Statute of Limitations had already ran out on December

19th,

2007even though the alleged crime was on December 191h 2004 and where the

defendant has never been absence from the State of California pending his trial any

Was this re-filed action a Violation of Due Process and Prejudicial?

dates

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

the prosecutor on behalf of the State? (2) 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? And,

(3) Can a defendant be forced and bound to the plea agreement where the Statute of

Limitation is/was No! Longer in existence after three (3) years?? See Cal. Pen. Code

§800-802 and §804; Statute of Limitations (1935) 23 Cal. L. Rev, at pp 525-527;

In re Harris (1993) 5 C. 4" 813,HN 11; People vs. Chapman (1975)47 CA 3d 597;

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

People vs. Sup. Ct. (Meeks) (199 1) 1 C. 4th 56, 66 HN 5; United States vs. Williams

(1951) 341 US 58, 68;In re Albert B. Demillo (1975) 14 C. 3d 598; People vs. Miller

(1859) 12 Cal. 291; People vs. Picetti (1899) 124 Cal. 361; Exparte Vice (1901) 5

Cal. 153; People vs. McGee (1934) 1 Cal. 2d 611; People vs. Rose (1972) 28 CA 3d

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

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

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

Kellett vs. Sup. Ct. (1966) 63 C. 2d 822; In re Davis (193 6) 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, If [not] (4) Under 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?????

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 re Freeman (2006) 38 C. 4th 630; Delzell vs. Day (1950) 36 C. 2d 349, uN 3.)

When a defendant on appeal has multiple layer of ill will help from various

court appointed ineffective assistant of counsel claims by both the court appointed and

private counsel over a twelve year period in his/her judicial proceedings (including

with a current unknown appointed avvellate counsel) and the record on appeal is

Silent to the events on appeal because the transcripts were no/augmented Was the

Defendant Prejudice by the appointed counsel on appeal refusal to not Augment the

Record and was it a Fundamental Miscarriage of Justice in violation of defendant's

Due Process Rights & Equal Protection of both the 6th and i4" Amendment when the

appellate court Justices' abuse their discretion when they all [a]greed to dismiss the

defendant's request for a Petition for a Habeas Corpus without Ordering the Trial

4t

Records to be Augmented????? (See, People v. Mendoza-Tello (1997) 15 C. 264;

Rojas v. Unknown (2017) 2017 US Dist. Lexis 75138; Trevino v. Thaler (2013) 569

US 413; Martinez v. Ryan (2012) 566 US 1; Delgado v. Lewis (2000) 223 F.3d 976;

(9th Cir. 2015) 799 F.3d 845.)

In re Hochberg (1970) 2 Cal. 3d 870; Ramirez v. US

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

fundamentally unfair in contravention of the Due Process Clause of the Federal Const.

Was the defendant deprived of adequate competent active advocate assistance

by the appointed appellate counsel by right under the 6' Amendment in any fashion

especially when the appellate court did not hold or make the Unknown Appointed

counsel to answer to the merits of the defendant's Habeas Corpus Petition?????

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

Independent Constitution

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

People vs. West (1970) 3 Cal. 3d 595, 604-608; People v. Griggs (1941) 17 Cal. 2d

621; and People vs. Schwartz (1927) 201 Cal. 309, 314.)

Was the defendant denied by both the Court of Appeal and the Judge Jeffrey G.

Bennett of the Ventura County Superior Court the Due Process Rights and a rightful

Equal Protection of the same State of California Independent Constitutional Rights

afforded to [all] other defendants to have an explanation into LhyflJ The §1382

Motion to Dismiss was [[jeniç without any factual basis when the Prosecution had

clearly admitted on the record that they failed to respond to the §1381 Demand for

Trial Motion filed by the defendant within the 90daysj Does this Court of Appeal's

of Trial Court transcripts conflict with the Court of Appeal's Decision

Decision with Fn7

in In re Birch (1973) 10 Cal. 3d 314, 319-320, 322; People v. Willard (2007) 145 CA

4th

1329; Blackledge v. Allison (1977) 431 US 63, 71-83 People v. West (1970) 3 C.

3d 595, 604-608; People v. Levey (1973) 8 C. 3d 648, 653 Was the denial Prejudicial

to the Defendant's 14' Amendment and Equal Protection under both Federal & State.

When a defendant objects to the error and miscalculation in the presentence

investigation report under the govern statute code section §1203PC and immediately

files a Motion to Recalculate the Presentence Custody Credits before the sentencing

takes place but the courtroom Judge still use the older version of the PC §4019 instead

of the newer revised §4019 pursuant to People v. Delgado (2012) 210 CA 4" 761 is

the defendant entitled to all of his presentence actual creditsi (2) And, if so was it

Prejudicial to the Defendant by the court' action and failure to award and apply the

correct amount of custody presentence custody credits deprived the Defendant of his

Libertv interest for his immediate release rather than having him do far more jail time

where a defendant is entitled to day for day credit under the newer revised version for

§4019 the defendant herein was deprived of One Thousand Five Hundred and ThirtyEight (1,538) Days of actual presentence custody credits also known as one for one

which can double an inmate's amount of presentence credit for a non-violent offense.

Did the Court of Appeal's decision to uphold appellant's conviction conflict with

the decisions in People v. Valdiva (1960) 182 CA 2d 145,148 where a defendant is

entitled to an opportunity to respond to adverse sentencing information; People v.

Clavel (2002) 103 CA 4th 516; People v. Welch (1993) 5 Cal. 4" 228, 234; People v.

Duran (1998)67 CA 4th 267; People v. Williams (2002)83 CA 4th 936 andj

~Co de §1237.]

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

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

the Plethora of Arguable Issues by Habeas Corpus due to ssi,12 court trai,scrivts'

(see CRC—Rule 12 or by Rule 10 (c), People vs. Gaston (1978)20 C. 3d 476, 481484 n.I,4) that were not provided on Direct Appea1? (2) And, if so was it

Prejudicial to the Defendant when the "Supreme Court of California cause further

Prejudicial Miscarriage of Justice when it failed to address this core issue raised by the

defendant Re: Ineffective Assistance of Appellate Counsel on Direct Appeal by way

of Habeas Corpus Petitionj" for counsel failure to Augment the Trial Court Record.

Was the defendant entitled under the U.S. Const. 6th and l4" Amendment to a

competent appellant attorney and a record that would permit a meaning presentation

of the appellate claims and by the attorneys failure to appreciate or correct the

shortcomings of the record constituted the inadequate assistance of counsel on

appeal?; (2) And, did this Court of Appeals' Decision conflict with the Court of

Appeal's Decision in People v. Barton (1978) 21 Cal. 3d 513; In re Newborn (1959)

168 CA 2d 472,476; People v. S/iambatuyer (1996) 50 CA 4th 267 UN 4; In re

Johnson (1965) 62 Cal. 2d 325,335; In re Smiley (1967) 66 Cal 2d 606; McMann v.

Richardson (1970) 397 US 759 FEIi People vs. Green (2000) 81 CA 4" 463;

Johnson v US (1966) 360 F.2d 844,847.

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

first

(2) And, [ if So], by [d]enying a Writ Petition to be filed Idloes it foreclose all

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

jextrinsic four corner issuesj 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 Ill Cir

1972) 454 F.2d 426, 428; People vs. Sumstine (1984) 36 C. 3d 909, 920 rHN iii Cal.

Const. Art. 1. Sec. 7. subd (a) (b): 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,

IN i;1 People vs. Monaghan (1894) 102 C. 229; People vs. Goldman (2014) 225 CA

4th

950; CRC-Rules 8.860-8.861 subds (2)(3)(8)(12)(A) and CRC-Rules 8.865

8.867

-

RLxD

When Ninety-Eight Point Nine Percent (98.9%) of the defendant's appeal deals

with matters that are "Extrinsic" to the current Record on appeal and unless the

record is Augmented to obtain the Factual Missing Arguable issues from the court

transcripts that are missing because the Appoint Appellate Counsel fails to make the

matter an Arguable Appellate Issue by making no reference to that part of the Silent

devoid record, Is the defendant's 6" and 14" Amendments Violated by the Appointed

Counsel for his failure to Request that the missing records be augmented so that the

defendant would have been able to present tall each and every issue that was raised

and filed in the CR -120 Notice of Appeal Form 1

1s this Prejudicial to an Appellant.

In the most recent United States Supreme Court Case No. 16-8255 i'IcCoyv

Juisian (5-14-20 18) 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 from and from what he has written out

on his court filed /Notice of4ppeal FormJ 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; 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 Cal. 4th 398, 423; Rojas v. Unknown (2017) 2017

US Dist. Lexis 75138, ction-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. Grjfj5 (9th Cir.

1990) 895 F.2d 561 Cuyler v. Sullivan (1980) 466 US 335; In re Smith (1970)3 Cal.

3d 192, 196; People v. Pena (1972) 25 CA 3d 414; People v. Mendoza-Teilo (1997)

15 C. 41h264; In re Hochberg (1970) 2 C. 3d 870; In re Andrew B. (1995) 40 CA 4"

825 i4; 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.)

Does the fact that when an appointed counsel writes and files a [Wendel Brief

but does not notify the defendant of this fact nor does counsel send the defendant

any parts of the records on aeal which is a MANDATORY MUST that the files

completely be sent to the defendant so that s/he can file their own brief; Was this

j by the Appointed Counsel on Appeal

AbandonmenLPrejudicial to the Defendant,

that deprived the defendant of his Federal & State Due Process Rights and Equal

Protection to be able to put forth an affirmative appellate defensd?, {especially after

Petitioner had provided both the Appellate Project and the Appellate Court Div 6

Presiding Justice Arthur L. Gilbert of this information by a direct letter to the Judge

himself regarding the Defendant {never being notified} about who was Petitioner's

counsel and when was a counsel going to be appointed to him in his direct appeal so

that the record could be perfected for proper appellate review'!!}(See, Ramirez v. US

(9th Cir. 2005) 2015 US App. Lexis 15005; Haines v. Kerner (1972) 404 US 519, I-1N

1,2; In re Banks (1971) 4 Cal. 3d227, iiN 1,24; Miller v. Pate (1967) 386 US 1,

HN2, En/sminger v. Iowa (1967) 386 US 748, HN1; Lane v. Brown (1963 372 US

ZfJW4L

477; Carter vs. Illinois (1946) 329 US 173. 174-175; People v. Corona (1978) 80 CA

3d 684, HN 1,2,5; and People v. Gaston (1978) 20 Cal. 3d 476.)

20)

Is a Defendant denied a substantial right when he files a Habeas Writ Petition

to be argued concurrently with regards to the Extrinsic Merits of the Four Corners of a

completely devoid record after the defendant finds out that some unknown appointed

counsel files a [Wende BriefJ and even further abandoned the defendant during the

direct appeal process by never providing the appellant with Fn7

co. Parts of the record on

appeal which does not satisfy the Federal Constitutional Standards. (See, i.e. Anders

v. Calif. (1967) 386 US 738; Penson v. Ohio (1988) 488 US 75; Davis v. Kramer (91h

Cir. 1999) 167 F.3d 494; US v. Grffy (91h Cir. 1990) 895 F.2d 561; In re Smith

4th 1297; People v. Pena

(1970) 3 cal. 3d 192; People vs. Hackett (1995) 36 CA

(1972) 25 CA 3d 414 423,

Turner v. Duncan (91h Cir. 1988) 158 F.3d 449 and

Davis vs. State Bar (1983) 33 Cal. 3d 231.) Was this Prejudicial on a Direct Appi

21)Was the defendant Prejudice by the totality of events when the Court of Appeal

[[Refuse to address every element of issues raised in appellant's Direct Appeal and

by way of two consolidated Petitions which did encompass all of the "Extrinsic

Issues" from a Silent Court record and Did the Court of Appeal's Decision Conflict

with the Court. of Appeal's Decision in People v. Mendoza-Tello (1997) 15 C. 4th 26

Was this action Prejudicial to the Appellant?

Was the defendant denied an Equal Opportunity Protection under the Federal

and State Due Process Clause to have his three (3) missing court trial dated

transcripts produced as he had requested to have them Augmentation for a appellate

record that would permit a clear meaningful, effective presentation of his Indigent's

Claims, like all other Indigent Appellant's but with a Cpetent Appointed Appellate

Counsel acting as an advocate on behalf of the Indigent

(See, i.e. People v.

Feggans (1967)67 Cal. 444; People v. Hyde (195 8) 51 Cal. 2d 152 and Douglas v.

California (1963) 372 US 353, 355.) Fi 7 s this Prejudicial to the Appellant Defense.]

Was the defendant Prejudice by the totality of events when the Justices in Div.

6 decision Denied the Habeas Writ Petitions without comment conflict with the Court

of Appeal's decision in People v. Pena (1972) 25 CA 3d 414; People v. MendozaTello (1997) 15 Cal. 4th_264; In re Smith (1970)3 C 3d 192, 196; In re Andrew B.

9t

(1995) 40 CA 4th 825 n.14 and Delgado v. Lewis (9t'

Cir. 1988) 223 F.3d 976.)

24)Was the defendant Prejudicei when the appellate court Justices in Div. 6

[refused to request the mystery unknown appointed appellate counsel to answer to the

complaint by the defendant in the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus regarding his

refusal to address the denial of Appellant's §1382 PC Oral Motion to Dismiss by

Private Trial Counsel and the Re-filing of the Original Dismissed prior charge of

§532(a) PC after the Statute of Limitations had already expired and all other issues

that were raised by the appellant that were also never raised up by this unknown

111ML

(v4fr

But were listed

mystery appointed appellate counsel on appellant's direct appeal

and outlined on the face of the defendant's Notice of Appeal Form. (See, Cuyler v.

Sullivan (1980) 466 US 335.) Was this action Prejudicial to the Appellant's defense?

Was it Prejudicial to Deny the Defendant his Equal Protection & Due Process

Rights to a Sveedv Trial Dismissal Pursuant to PC §1382 under the Color of Law

from the Federal & State Constitution; Article I, §13 & 15 and CCP §1858??? Did

the Court of Appeal's decision to uphold appellant's conviction conflict with the

decisions of People v. Wagner (2009) 45 Cal. 41h 1039; People v. Brown (1968) 260

CA 2d 745,751; Gonzalez v. Sup. Ct. (2008) 166 CA 4 1h 922; People v. Hughes

(1974) 38 CA 3d 670; Smith v. Sup. Ct. (1984) 159 CA 3d 1172; Chavez v. Sup. Ci.

(1984) 153 CA 3d 130; People v. Cave (1978) 81 CA 3d 957; People v. Radii(1977)

76 CA 3d 702; in re Gray (2009) 179 CA 4th 1189, 1200; People v. Rapp ( 1966) 64

Cal. 2d 643; Houston v. Lack (1988) 487 US 266; Miles v. Prunty (91h Cir. 1999) 187

F.3d 1104; Huizar v. Carey (91h Cir. 2001) 273 F. 3d 1220, 1220; Moore v. Twomey

(2004) 120 CA 4t1 910 & Silverbrand v. County of Los Angeles (2009) 46 C. 4" 106.

Was it Prejudicial against the Defendant for the Court to allow the District

Attorney to re-file an Original Dismissed Charge §532(a) PC after the Statute of

Limitations (PC §800, 801, 802, §804 and The Law Revision Commission's

Reference to the Model Pen. Code §1.06 subd (5)) had already expired when the

District Attorney [failed to Amend the Information] within the Statutory time of PC

§802 "Time Period for Commencement of Prosecution" to recharge a

defendant within the statutory time of [three (3) years] after the Original

Arresting Charge Dismissal took place after the alleged crime pursuant to Pen C §15

and §683 which allegedly occurred between November 28th, 2009 a ndDecember 12th

2009??? The court and the District Attorney had no jurisdiction to come back after

nine (9) subsequent years to the expiration of the period of Limitations, and re-file

the same Original dismissed charge §532(a) on August 26", 2016 for an alleged crime

that allegedly happened back on December 19t1', 2004 once the Three (3) year Statute

had ran out on December 19th, 2007. Was this Prejudicial to the Defrndant??? Did

the Court of Appeal's decision to uphold appellant's conviction conflict with the

decisions in People v. Brice (1988) 206 CAM 111, "Thus, at the time of trial, the

prosecution could no longer amend the information to allege a violation of PC

§32.

"More than three years thereafter expired before the commencement of trial

or any event which could be considered [* **10] as subjecting defendants to a charge

of accessory to murder in violation of section 32 "of the Pen C.; (See further People v.

McGee (1934)1 Cal. 2d 611,613; In re Davis (1936) 13 CA 2d 109,111; People v.

Crosby (1962) 58 Cal. 2d 713,724-725; People v. Rose(1972)28 CA 3d 415 417; In

re Demillo (1975) 14 Cal. 3d 598; Kellett v. Sup. Ct. (1966) 63 Cal. 2d 822; Sanders

v. Sup. Ct. (1999) 76 CA 4th 609,617; People v Chapman(1975) 47 CA 3d 597;

People v. Angel (1999) 70 CA 4th 1141 & People v. Lynch (2010) 182 CA 4th 1262.)

" .....

Was it Prejudicial against the Defendant when the Trial Court Judge Patricia

M. Murphy [failed to honor] the plea agreement (a contract) between the defendant

and the prosecutor to which the court consents to be bound under "People v. Shepeard

(1985) 169 CA 3d 580, 586"??? (2) And, If so, did Judge Murphy, further [failed to

impose] a sentence within the limits of that bargain as outlined in "People v. Green

(1982) 142 CA 3d 207, 215" Once the court had accepted the terms of the negotiated

plea ({[made on August 261h, 2016]1) [it] lacked Jurisdiction to alter the terms of that

plea from time served in the county jail. People v. Tang (1997) 54 CA 4" 669, 677.

Did the Court of Appeal's decision to uphold appellant's conviction conflict with

the decisions in People v. Cardoza (1984) 161 CA 3d 40 4*4; People v. Orin (1975)

13 Cal. 3d 937, 942-943; People v. Morris (1979) 97 CAM 358; People v. Olea

(1997) 59 CA 4th 1289, 1292,1297-1298; People v. Daugherty (1981) 123 CA 3d 314;

People v. Galloway (1981) 29 Cal.3d 666; People v. Johnson (1974) 10 Cal. 3d 868;

People v. Mancheno(1982) 32 Cal. 3d 855, 865-866; People v Walker(1991) 54 Cal.

3d 1013,1024, *7,8; People v. Kaanehe(1977) 19 Cal. 3d 1,13-15; Santobello v.

NY(1971) 404 US 257,262,267-269; US v. Brown (1974) 500 F.2d 375; US v. Carter

(4th

Cir. 1972) 454 F.2d 426, 428; US v. Hammer (1975) 528 F.2d 326; Harris v.

Superintendant(1975) 518 F.2d 1173; US v. Paiva (1969) 294 F. Supp. 742; US v.

Lester (2nd Cir. 1957) 247 F.2d 496; Cooper v. US (4th Cir. 1979) 594 F.2d 12; Gomez

v. Montgomery (2016) 2016 US Dist. Lexis 119398; Machibroda v. US(1962) 368

US 487 Martinez v. Sup. Ct.(1973) 36 CA 3d 683; Kercheval v. US(1927) 274 US

220 and Cal.CC §1635-36,1638.

Was the defendant Prejudiced when the mystery unknown appointed appellate

counsel [N]ever sent the defendant a copy of any opening [[w]ende Brief or any

[R]ecords of the case file itself as told and directed to by the Second Appellate

District Court, Division Six per/ a March 27th, 2018 F***NOTICE***J which is in

the case file (See, Anders v. California (1967) 386 US 738; Penson v. Ohio (1988)

488 US 75; Davis v. Kramer (91h Cir. 1999) 167 F.3d 494; Turner v. Duncan (9th Cir.

1988) 158 F.3d 449 US v. Grffy(91h Cir. 1990) 895 F.2d 561; People vs. Hackett

(1995) 36 CA 4th 1297; In re Smith (1970) 3 cal. 3d 192; People v. Pena(1972) 25

CA 3d 414 423, iN5; Davis vs. State Bar (1983) 33 Cal. 3d 231; Griffin v. Illinois

(1956) 351 US 12; Douglas v. California (1963) 372 US 353,355; People v. Hyde

(1958)51 Cal. 2d 152; and Powell v. Alabama (1932) 287 US 45.)

Is there Prejudice to deny a Defendant an Evidentiary Hearing whenever trial

transcripts are missing from a direct appeal that are the core element to any reliance

thereof by a defendant on prior promises made by the State Government Officia1???

(2) And, If so, [Must a Evidentiary] hearing be held to resolve any substantial chain

of events in a court proceeding when a question of breach is made from the agreed

upon Plea Agreement comes up or the validity of any promises made by any state

official(s) or officer(s) of the court to a defendant becomes questionable and the

transcripts from the proceeding are not made available "SHALL" a Evidentiary

Hearing be held pursuant to People v. Gaston (1978) 20 Cal. 3d 476,481-484, fnll, 4;

CRC-Rules 10(c), 12(a), 8.860, 8.865 thru 8.867; Black/edge v. Allison (1977) 431

US 63; People vs. Schwartz (1927) 201 Cal. 309, 314; People v. Griggs (1941) 17

Cal. 2d 621; People v. Deiles (1968) 69 Cal. 2d 906,910; People v. Wadkins (1965)

63 Cal. 2d 110,113, 4*2,3,4;1 People vs. West, (1970) 3 Cal. 3d 595, 604-608; In re

Armstrong (1981) 126 CA 3d 565,570; Roberts v. LaVelle(1967) 389 US 40; People

v. Smith(1949) 34 Cal. 2d 449; Eyrich v. Muni. Ct. (1985) 165 CA 3d 1138, 1140;

March v. Muni. C1, (1972) 7 Cal. 3d 422; Griffin v. Illinois (1956) 351 US 12;

Eskridge v. Was!,. (1958) 357 US 214; Burn v. Ohio (1959) 360 US 252; Smith v.

Bennett, (1961) 365 US 708; Draper v. Wash. (1963) 372 US 487; Rinaldi v. Yeager

(1966) 384 US 305; Mayer v. City of Chicago (1971) 404 US 189; People v. Preslie

(1977) 70 CA 3d 486; People v. Brooks (1980)26 Cal. 3d 471; People v. Hyde (1958)

51 Cal. 2d 152; Penson v. Ohio (1988) 488 US 75 and People v. Barton (1978)21

Cal. 3d 513 at pp 517-518.

Any Denial for an Evidentiary hearing by any Court of Review will always be

Prejudice and have a negative Prejudicial Miscarriage of Justice Chili Effect and

where no effort to grant one can [n]ever be deemed a harmless error.This position is

very correct and tantamount/Akin to a Review for a DNA Request for a defendant to

prove his innocence position that where there is reason to doubt or believe a matter at

issue, there [MUST] be a sound mind of peace for the prejudice party, the defendant.

Where the Judgment is Invalid it must be voided and Reversed.

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

Protection Analysis and when the appeal record [is 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 SeaRiverMartime vs. Mineta (9t 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

judiciqIf

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

Federal and State Constitutional Due Process Rights for the state court Justices' to

refused to "Take a Second Look" as required in McQuiggin vs. Perkins (2013) 133

S.Ct

i's_a

A

LIST OF PARTIES

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

[I All parties do not appear in the caption of the case on the cover page. A list of

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

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. 1st. 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, 2' Floor North Tower, Los Angeles, California 90013-1204

-

Ventura County Superior Court, 800 5. Victoria Ave., Government Ctr.

Ventura, California 93006

Ventura County District Attorney's Office, 800 South Victoria Ave.,

Ventura, California 93006

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

Penthouse Suite 500, 5th Floor, Beverly Hills, California 90211-1867

TABLE OF CONTENTS

OPINIONSBELOW ........................................................................................................1

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

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED .................................

STATEMENT OF 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 E

APPENDIX F

äfliL

R. ((j3))

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED

CASES

PAGE NUMBER

Strickland vs. Washington (1984) 466 U 668, 692, U.S. vs. Cronic (1984) 466 Us 648,

In re Harris (1993) 5 Cal. 4t 813, IEIN ii]; People vs. Chapman (1975) 47 CA 3d 597;

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

People vs. Sup. Ct. (Meeks) (199 1) 1 Cal. 4" 56, 66

United States vs. Williams (1951) 341 US 58, 68;

In reAlbertB. Demillo (1975) 14 Cal. 3d 598; People vs. Miller (1859) 12 Cal. 291;

People vs. Picetti (1899) 124 Cal. 361; Exparte Vice (1901)5 Cal. 153;

People vs. McGee (1934) 1 Cal. 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. 4" 1141;

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

Kellett vs. Sup. Ct. (1966)63 C. 2d 822; In re Davis (193 6) 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; In re Freeman (2006) 38 Cal. 4" 630;

Hewitt vs. Helms (1983) 459 US 460, 466; Delzell vs. Day (1950) 36 C. 2d 349,

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

Rojas v. Unknown (2017) 2017 US Dist. Lexis 75138;

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

Delgado v. Lewis (2000) 223 F.3d 976; In re Hochberg (1970) 2 Cal. 3d 870;

Ramirez v. US (91h Cir. 2015) 799 F.3d 845; Johnson vs. Zerbst(1938) 304 US 458, 464;

People vs. West (1970) 3 Cal. 3d 595, 604-608;People v. Griggs (1941) 17 Cal. 2d 621;

People vs. Schwartz (1927) 201 Cal. 309, 314; People v. Levey (1973) 8 C. 3d 648, 653

In re Birch (1973) 10 Cal. 3d 314, 319-320, 322;

People v. Willard (2007) 145 CA 4th 1329; Blackledge v. Allison (1977) 431 US 63, 71-83;

People v. Delgado (2012) 210 CA 4th 761;People v. Valdiva (1960) 182 CA 2d 145,148;

STATUTES AND RULES

Cal. Pen. Code §1381, 1382

Cal. Pen. Code §532(a)

Cal. Pen. Code §800-802 and §804;

OTHER

"NOTICE OF APPEAL" Form CR-120

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED

CASES

PAGE NUMBER

People v. Clavel (2002) 103 CA 4111 516; People v. Weld, (1993) 5 Cal. 4th 228, 234;

People v. Duran (1998) 67 CA 4111 267; People v. Williams (2002) 83 CA 4th 936;

People vs. Gasto,, (1978) 20 C. 3d 476, 481-484; People v. Barton (1978)21 Cal. 3d 513;

In re Newbor,, (195 9) 168 CA 2d 472,476; People v. Shambatuyer (1996) 50 CA 4" 267;

In re Johnson(1965) 62 Cal. 2d 325,335; In re Smiley (1967) 66 Cal 2d 606;

McMann v. Richardson (1970) 397 US 759 .14;' People vs. Green (2000) 81 CA 4th 463;

Johnson v US (1966) 360 F.2d 844,847; 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;

People vs. Sumstine (1984)36 C. 3d 909, 920 HN iO;

People vs. Trujillo (2016) 244 CA 4" 106;

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

Enisminger vs. Iowa (1967) 386 U5 748, ri-iT

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

iCoy vs. Louisiana' (2018) Case No. 16-8255; Davis vs. State Bar (1983) 33 C. 3d 231;

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

People vs. Ramirez (2006) 39 Cal. 4" 398,423;

Rojas v. Unknown (2017) 2017 US Dist. Lexis 75138,[Section- 7

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. Grjffy (9th Cir. 1990) 895 F.2d 561;

Cuyler v. Sullivan (1980) 466 US 335; In re Smith, (1970) 3 Cal. 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 4' 825 Lfn.14;

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

Delgado v. Lewis (91h Cir. 1988) 223 F.3d 976; Carter vs. Illinois (1946) 329 US 173;

_

C

STATUTES AND RULES

fenal Code §1237.11

CRC Rule 12 or by Rule 10 (c);

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

CRC-Rules 8.865 -8.867;

-

OTHER

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED

CASES

PAGE NUMBER

Turner vs. Duncan (91h Cir. 1988) 158 F.3d 449;

Davis vs. Kramer (91h Cir. 1999) 1999 US App. Lexis 918;

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

Ramirez v. US(91h Cir. 2005) 2015 US App. Lexis 15005;

Haines v. Kerner (1972) 404 US 519,1IT1 ii; In re Banks (1971)4 Cal. 3d227, PN

Miller v. Pate (1967) 386 US 1, [HN2, Enisminger v. Iowa (1967) 386 US 748, "N1;

Lane v. Brown (1963 372 US 477; Carter vs. Illinois (1946) 329 US 173. 174-175;

People v. Corona (1978)80 CA 3d 684,11-IN 1,2,; Anders v. Calif. (1967) 386 US 738;

Penson v. Ohio (1988) 488 US 75; Davis v. Kramer (91h Cir. 1999) 167 F.3d 494;

US v. Grffy (91 Cir. 1990) 895 F.2d 561; In re Smith (1970) 3 cal. 3d 192;

People vs. Hackett (1995) 36 CA 4 1h 1297;People v. Pena (1972) 25 CA 3d 414 423;

Turner v. Duncan (91 Cir. 1988) 158 F.3d 449; Davis vs. State Bar (1983) 33 Cal. 3d 231;

People v. Feggans (1967) 67 Cal. 444; People v. Hyde (1958) 51 Cal. 2d 152;

Douglas v. California (1963) 372 US 353, 355; People v. Wagner (2009) 45 Cal. 4th 1039;

People v. Brown (1968) 260 CA 2d 745,751; Gonzalez v. Sup. Ct. (2008) 166 CA 4th 922;

People v. Hughes (1974) 38 CA 3d 670; Smith v. Sup. Ci. (1984) 159 CA 3d 1172;

Chavez v. Sup. CL (1984) 153 CA 3d 130; People v. Cave (1978) 81 CA 3d 957;

People v. RadiI (1977) 76 CA 3d 702; In re Gray (2009) 179 CA 4th 1189, 1200;

People v. Rapp (1966) 64 Cal. 2d 643; Houston v. Lack (1988) 487 US 266;

(91h Cir. 1999) 187 F.3d 1104;

Miles v. Prunty

Huizar v. Carey (91h Cir. 2001) 273 F. 3d 1220, 1220;

Moore v, Twomey (2004) 120 CA 910; People v. Brice (1988) 206 CA3d 111;

Silverbrand v. County of Los Angeles (2009) 46 C. 4th 106;

People v. McGee (1934) 1 Cal. 2d 611,613; In re Davis (1936) 13 CA 2d 109,111;

People v. Crosby (1962) 58 Cal. 2d 713,1724-725;

STATUTES AND RULES

CCP §1858

The Law Revision Commission's Reference to the Model Pen. Code §1.06 subd (5)

OTHER

fa.1,'e

11

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED

CASES

PAGE NUMBER

People v. Rose (1972)28 CA M415 417; In re Demillo (1975) 14 Cal. 3d 598;

Kellett v. Sup. Ct. (1966) 63 Cal. 2d 822; Sanders v. Sup. Ct. (1999) 76 CA 4" 609,617;

People v Chapman (1975) 47 CA 3d 597;

1h

People v. Angel (1999) 70 CA 4 1141; People v. Lynch (2010) 182 CA 4th 1262;

People v. Shepeard (1985) 169 CA 3d 580,586; People v. Green (1982) 142 CA 3d 207,215

People v. Tang (1997) 54 CA 4 1h 669, 677;People v. Cardoza (1984) 161 CA 3d 40 *4;

People v. Orin (1975) 13 Cal. 3d 937, 942-943; People v. Morris (1979) 97 CAM 358;

4th

People v. Olea (1997) 59 CA

1289, 1292,1297-1298;

People v. Daugherty (1981) 123 CA 3d 314; People v. Calloway (1981)29 Ca1.3d 666;

People v. Johnson (1974) 10 Cal. 3d 868;

People v. Mancheno (1982) 32 Cal. 3d 855, 865-866;

People v Walker (1991) 54 Cal. 3d 1013,1024*7,8;

People v. Kaanehe (1977)19 Cal. 3d 1,13-15;

Santobeilo v. NY(1971) 404 US 257, 262, 267-269; US v. Brown (1974) 500 F.2d 375;

US v. Carter (4th Cir. 1972) 454 F.2d 426, 428; US v. Hammer (1975) 528 F.2d 326;

Harris v. Superintendant (1975) 518 F.2d 1173;

US v. Paiva (1969) 294 F. Supp. 742; US v. Lester (2nd Cir. 1957) 247 F.2d 496;

Cooper v. US (41h Cir. 1979) 594 F.2d 12; Martinez v. Sup. Ct.(1973) 36 CA 3d 683;

Gomez v. Montgomery (2016) 2016 US Dist. Lexis 119398;

Machibroda v. US (1962) 368 US 487; Kercheval v. US (1927) 274 US 220;

Griffin v. Illinois (1956) 351 US 12; People v. Hyde (1958) 51 Cal. 2d 152;

Powell v. Alabama (1932) 287 US 45; People v. Del/es (1968) 69 Cal. 2d 906,910;

People v. Wadkins (1965)63 Cal. 2d 110,113, [N*2,3,4

In re Armstrong (1981) 126 CA 3d 565,570; Roberts v. LaVelle (1967) 389 US 40;

People v. Smith (1949) 34 Cal. 2d 449; Eyrich v. Muni. Ct. (1985) 165 CA 3d 1138, 1140;

STATUTES AND RULES

Cal CC §1635-36, §1638;

.i

flwL

eK.,

V,

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED

CASES

PAGE NUMBER

March v. Muni. Ct. (1972) 7 Cal. 3d 422; Griffin v. Illinois (1956) 351 US 12;

Eskridge v. Wash. (1958) 357 US 214; Burn v. Ohio (1959) 360 US 252;

Smith v. Bennett, (1961) 365 US 708; Draper v. Wash. (1963) 372 US 487;

Rinaldi v. Yeager (11966) 384 U5 305; Mayer v. City of Chicago (1971) 404 US 189;

People v. Preslie (1977) 70 CA 3d 486; People v. Brooks (1980) 26 Cal. 3d 471;

People v. Hyde (1958) 51 Cal. 2d 152; Willowbrook vs. Olech (2000) 528 US 562, 564;

SeaRiverMartime vs. Mineta (91h Cir. 2002) 309 F. 3d 662;

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

STATUTES AND RULES

OTHER

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

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

[1 is unpublished.

The opinion of the United States district court appears at Appendixto

the petition and is

; or,

[ I reported at

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

[I 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

I I reported at

; or,

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

1s unpublished.

The opinion of the SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT COURT

court appears at AppendixB

petition and is

; or,

[I reported at

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

's unpublished.

(r.

1.

to the

LPLkbL

(9q

JURISDICTION

[1 For cases from federal courts:

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

was

[1 No petition for rehearing was timely filed 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______

,

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

to and including

(date) on

(date)

in Application No.A_______

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

For cases from state courts:

The date on which the highest state court decided my case

A copy of that decision appears at AppendixA

JS6

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

and a copy of the order denyingrehearing

appears at Appendix

.

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

to and including

(date) on

(date) in

Application No.

A________

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

A2

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED

Statute of Limitations (193 5) 23 Cal. L. Rev, at pp -525-527;

United States Constitutions' VI Amendment

United States Constitutions' XIV Amendment

Cal. Cons!. Art. 1, Sec. 7, subd (a) (b)

California Constitution Article I, §13 & §15

ä2ki4L

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Back on December 191h, 2004 in Simi Valley Petitioner made a single purchased transaction for a

"2005 Kia Sedona Van-Ex Model" using the Cash Rebate Check and his Insurance Coverage Check as a

down payment.

In January 2005 and unbeknown to Petitioner herein a Judge out in the Ventura County Superior

Court (VCSC) had issued a warrant for the Petitioner's arrest for one (1) count each of the following

three (3) charges: Count (1) §532(a) PC; Count (2) §487(d) (1) PC; and Count (3) §530.5(a) PC.

On or about and sometime between November

2008 and December 12', 2008 the Prosecution

pursuant to PC §1009 had Dismissed the charge 11 532(a) PC" against the Petitioner one year after the

Statute of Limitations had already expired the prior year on December 19, 2007 for an alleged crime

allegedly committed on December 1 9111, 2004.

Upon this Dismissal the new charges became Count (1) §530.5(a) PC and Count (2) §487(d)(1)

with no other further counts being added, But after eight (8) subsequent years to the expiration of the

Statute of Limitation Period (See Cal. Penal Code §801, §804(c) (d) and The Law Revision

Commission's Reference to the Model Pen. Code §1.06 subd (5)) and the Statute of Limitations (1935)

23 Cal. L. Rev, at pp 525-527).

On August 26th1, 2016 the District Attorney re-files the prior dismissed charge §532(a) PC by

forcing the VCSC Computer System to re-accept this prior dismissed charge that was already dismissed

eight (8) years prior and was now being reinstated [way] outside of the Statute of Limitations Time/me.

On August 3JSt 2016 in the Santa Monica Courthouse in Dept. "R" Petitioner was appearing for

his own Unlawful Detainer Hearing that went well into the afternoon hours in the Case of Hillcrest

Manor, LLC vs. Williams Case No 16R0356. Petitioner herein was also ordered to return back to this

court on the following Tuesday, the day after Labor Day on September 6111, 2016.

After becoming homeless and without transportation the courts in both Los Angeles and Ventura

County had issued bench warrants for the following Case Nos. BA443387 and Case No #2005043349;

for FTA while Petitioner had been roaming the streets on through the end of 2016 and thereafter the New

Year in 2017 was arrested after becoming homeless due to the constant revoking of his bail for no logical

reasons by the Los Angeles Superior Court Judge in Case No. BA443387.

After twelve (12) very long exasperating turmoil experience years of experiencing firsthand of a

Pervasive Judicial System out in Ventura County, On April 17111, 2017 while in the LASD custody and

using the (in) Jail Mailbox Rule, Petitioner filed his first (1st) and Original §1381 PC Demand for

Trial Motion and had hand delivered his signed and dated document over to a Deputy Jail Sheriff to sign

KLL

qgil~e

and mail on Petitioner's behalf. (See, Houston v. Lack (1988) 487 US 266; Miles v. Prunty (9th Cir.

1999) 187 F.3d 1104; Huizar v. Carey (9th Cir. 2001) 273 F. 3d 1220, 1220; Moore v. Twomey (2004)

120 CA 4th 910 and Silverbrand v. County of Los Angeles (2009) 46 C. 4th 106.)

This was done to give Ventura County a head start to come and get Petitioner. Filing the §1381,

that early is only considered "A Premature Notice" Akin and Tantamount to a Premature Appeal under

CRC-Rules 8.104 subd (d)(1)(2) and CRC-Rule 8.308(c) until the Immediate Entry of Judgment is

entered in the Permanent Minutes under CRC-Rule 8.104 subd (c)(2) (See, In re Gray (2009) 179 CA 4"

1189, 1200; People v. Rapp (1966) 64 Cal. 2d 643.)

Then approx forty-five (45) days from April lith, 2017 Petitioner had sent both the VCSC DA's

Office and the Master Calendar, courtroom Judge another courteous 2 §1381. There is No! Case law

saying that Petitioner's first (1st) one was considered No! Good under the Local CRC-Rules.

On June 21s1 2017 Petitoner was transferred to Wasco State Prison and once Petitioner's ninety

(90) days was up from May 8", 2017 (or longer from April 11th, 2017 relatively speaking) but by the time

Petitioner was in Department 14 on August 10th, 2017 Petitioner's § 1382 Dismissal Motion had already

been received by the District Attorney and a copy was already filed stamped within the Master Calendar

Courtroom Judge earlier in that very same week before the Petitioner, herein had to be wheelchair lifted

and transferred out to Ventura County. Petitioner had made it on the bus but the VCSC D.A.'s office

missed their own.

On August 10", 2017 Petitioner had immediately moved for Dismissal of the Ventura County

Charge(s) from August 26", 2016, but the Presiding Judge kept trying to play word games with the

Petitioner to continue the matter, or waive time, but the Petitioner dept refusing. Petitioner even told the

Judge that he had a Private Attorney on Record and that Petitioner's Attorney has to be here to represent

Petitioner and that's when the DA said that he would get "Mr. Casselman" on the phone to appear for the

August 14", 2017 §1382 Motion to Dismiss Hearing.

On August 1 41/l 2017 Petitioner's Attorney Mr. Casselman had argued with the very same Judge

in Dept 14 to discuss the case and expressed why the record before the Judge had put the matter on

second cal, and two (2) hours later it was sent out to be argued again for the third time, where it ended up

in Judge Jeffrey G. Bennett's courtroom, who himself had once before I"RECUSED"I himself before in

this case but on a different issue that had came before him. It was illegal for this Judge to hear the issue.

Now during the three (3) different court hearings regarding the following §I38i and 1382

Motions; during the on the record colloquy, the District Attorney never denies receiving the three (3)

separate motions. The District Attorney's Office just did not act on them plus the Court had copies as

well.

This Court needs a Copy of the Sixteen Pages (approx) Plea-Agreement that the Petitioner had

signed for a "Time Served" Deal for Twelve (12) months not two year nrison sentence at One-Third

i1/3Ltrne with parole. Penal Code §1192.5 subds (1)(2)(3) and §1192.6 subds (a)(b)(c) were all (both)

Violations of Petitioner's Due Process and Equal Protection. (See, People v. Tang (1997) 54 CA

4th 669,

677; People v. Cardoza (1984) 161 CA 3d 40 "4j1(PC1192.1 andll92.2) People vs. Calloway (198 1)

29 Cal.3d 666; Santobello vs. N.Y. (1971) 404 US 257 at p.262; US vs. Brown (1974) 500f 2d 375. The

trial court breach the written 8/26/2016 Plea Agreement and the sentence was totally disproportionate to

the signed plea bargain. (People vs. Buttram (2003) 30 Cal. 4th 773; People vs. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.

4th 68, 73, 78; and Cunningham vs. California (2007) 549 US 270.

Petitioner has a right to appeal the denial of one thousand five hundred and thirty-eight days of

presentence credit owed and due to him. (People vs. Delgado (2012) 210 Cal. App. 4 176) and the Illegal

Imposed Restitution, Fee, Fines, etc... (People vs. Crandell (2007) 40 Cal. 0 1301, 1308-09) as well as

to appeal the denial of Petitioner the Right to a Guaranteed Right of a Adequate Competent Active

Advocate under the United States Constitution 61h and 14th Amendments and the Petitioner was further

deprived by Mr. Casselman.

Petitioner, would not and should not have been sentenced or serving anytime with 1,538 actual

days of presentence credit and doubled up to be 3,076 pre-sentenced credits pursuant to §4019 PC, If Mr.

Gary S. Casselman had been Focus, Ferocious and Zealous in his client's (petitioner's defense) Petitioner

would not have been jailed. What type of an Attorney would have their client plead to an expired charge

The trial court was immediately without Jurisdiction to prosecute at all any new, additional, revised

or amended charges after the clock to prosecute began to run back in January 2005 pursuant to PC §804(d)

when the arrest warrant had been issued. Further, See The Law Revision Commission's Reference to the

Model Pen. Code §1.06 subd (5); The Statute of Limitations (1935) 23 Cal. L. Rev, at pp 525-527; and see,

People v. McGee (1934) 1 Cal. 2d 611,613; in re Davis (1936) 13 CA 2d 109,111; People v. Crosby (1962)

58 Cal. 2d 713,724-725; People v. Rose (1972) 28 CA 3d 415 417; In re Demillo (1975) 14 Cal. 3d 598;

Kellett v. Sup. Ct. (1966) 63 Cal. 2d 822; Sanders v. Sup. Ct. (1999) 76 CA 4th 609,617; People v Chapman

(1975)47 CA 3d 597; People v. Angel (1999) 70 CA 4th 114; In re Harris (1993)5 Cal. 4'h 813; People v.

Brice (1988) 206 Cal. App. 3d '111 & People v. Lynch (2010) 182 CA 4th 1262. Once the District Attorney

dronved the original count(]) PC §532(a) in November 2008, they lost that Jurisdiction and the ship sailed.

As CRC-Rule 8.304 subd (a)(4) states: The NOA "MUST BE LIBERALLY cOJ'TSTRUED."

Petitioner had written down very clearly what he was appealing when the CR-120 Felony Form was filed

back in October 2017. "As will be seen, the duty of an appointed appellate counsel is not to argue against

the client is "Pivotal" ..... (In re Andrew B. (1995) 40 Cal. App. 4th 825, i)See "ABA Model Rules of

Professional Conduct Rule 1.16."

KI

I

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION

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

Pursuant to Rule 20.4(a); Picard vs. Connor (1971) 404 US 270, 275; Taylor vs. Lewis (9th Cir 2006) 460

F.3d 1093, 1097

and Hovey vs. Ayers (9th Cir. 2006) 458 F.3d 892, 901-902.

"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

Courts, are under an obligation to guard and enforce every right secured by the Federal Question." Smith vs.

O'Grady (194 1) 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

In Bowen vs. Johnson (1939) 306 US

citing: "ExparteNielsen (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 IM US TI

In]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 porte 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 defining 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 iT1

Miller vs. Pate (1967) 386 US 1 E2 "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. Ho/oh an (1935) 294 US 103. There has been ! 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 51 9iIJ1,2

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

90 S. Ct. 1441, 25 L. Ed. 2d 763

,

oprkJaL

(1

CONCLUSION

The petition for a writ of certiorari should be granted.

Respectfully submitted

Date: December 201h, 2018