# Opposition Brief — Ylst v. Myers

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385020_2512%3A2

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Opposition Brief
- **Published:** January 1, 1990
- **Citation:** 498 U.S. 879

## Text

one. 90-112

‘IN THE

BS COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
"ede Term, 31999

a

oes
ey ae
hte Le

ea Sarton! “Pa ataones,

2H aFrosr7r0% TO PETITIO N
FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

FERN M. LAETHEM
California State Public Defender

MICHAEL PESCETTA*
Deputy State Public Defencer

1390 Market Street. Suite 425
San Franciscc Talifornia 94102
Telephone: (415) 557-1600

Attorneys for Respondent
Counsel of

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

Should plenary review on certiorari be granted to
decide: (1) Whether a decision that a state court must
afford similar treatment to similarly situated litigants,
with respect to an issue of state law, is a "new" rule under
Teague v. Lane and its progeny; and

(2) Whether the guarantee of equal protection of
the laws permits a state court to afford radically incon-
sistent treatment to similarly situated litigants, when
there is no justification for the distinction in treatment.

J /

fi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR
WRIT OF CERTIORARI

STATEMENT OF CASE

ARGUMENT

AN APPLICATION OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE
REQUIRING A STATE TO TREAT SIMILARLY-SITUATED
LITIGANTS SIMILARLY DOES NOT IMPOSE A "NEW
RULE" WITHIN THE MEANING OF TEAGUE v. LANE

THE INCONSISTENT TREATMENT AFFORDED BY THE
CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT TO SIMILARLY
SITUATED LITIGANTS WHOSE CASES PRESENTED
THE IDENTICAL ISSUE VIOLATE THE EQUAL
PROTECTION CLAUSE

CONCLUSION

ii.

Page

14

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED

Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court,

57 Cal.2d 450, 20 Cal.Rptr. 321
369 P.2d 937 (1962)

Butler v. McKeller,
aoe U.S. , 108 L.Ed.2d 347

Draper v. Washington,
373 U.S. 487, 489-490, (1963)

Estelle v. Gamble,
429 U.S. $37 (13976)

Evitts v. Lucey,
469 U.S. 387 (1985)

F.S. Royster Guano Co. v. Virginia,

253 U.S. 412 (1920)

In re Rhymes,
Crim. No. 22024

In re Rhymes,
170 Cal.App.3d 1100,
217 Cal.Rptr. 439 (1985)

Iowa-Des Moines National Bank v. Bennett,

284 U.S. 239 (1931)

Johnson v. State of Arizona,
462 F.2d 1352 (9th Cir. 1972)

Knouse v. Nimocks,
8 Cal.2d 482, 66 P.2d 438 (1937)

LaRue v. McCarthy,
833 F.2d 140 (9th Cir. 1987)

Maxwell v. Bugbee,
250 U.S. 525 (1919)

Myers v. Ylst,
897 F.2d 417 (9th Cir. 1990)

& &

Pages

14

passim

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED CONT'D

Cases
Palmore Sidoti,
466 U.S. 429 (1984)
People v. Bell,
Crim. No. 20879
People v. Bell,
49 Cal.3d 502, 262 Cal.Rptr. 1,
778 P.2d 129 (1989)
People v. Harris,
Crim. No. 21633

People v
36 Cal.3
679 P.2d

People v
Crim. No

People v
45 Cal.3
729 P.2d

Plyler v.

457 U.S.

Rice v.
349 U.S.

Shelley
334 U.S.

Teague v.

489 U.S.

Virginia

100 U.S.
Yick W
118 |

. Harris,
qd 36, 201 Cal.Rptr. 782

433 (1984

. Myers
21991

. Myers,
qd 250, 23
698 (1987

Doe,
202 (1982)

Sioux City Cemetery,
70 (1955)

v. Kraemer,

1 (1948)
Lane,
103 L.Ed.2d 334
Vv. Rives

313 (188C

Hopkins,

204 }RRE

i @)

"oO

©

Q

oa)

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED CONT'D™

Constitutions

Pages
5,6,8,11

U.S. Const., XIV amend.

Court Rules

Rules of Court
Rule 29.4
Rules of App.

Supreme Court Rule

Statutes

(a) (17) (i)

Gressman & S. Shapiro,

Supreme Court Practice,

12

14

NNN

14

No. 90-112
IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

October Term, 1990

EDDIE S. YLST, Warden, Petitioner,
Ve

VENSON LANE MYERS, Respondent.

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF
CERTIORARI

Respondent VENSON MYERS respectfully prays that
this Court deny the petition for certiorari, seeking review
of the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit in this case. That opinion is reported at

897 F.2d 417.

four cases inv¢ the sme whether inder
state constitut faci« how f ystemat
racial underrepresentat rin ry venir i be
made by relyin

refinement of

gible populati

20879 Myer:
nM automatic a
r+ ra +oaq
3 fornia
r € rey I
¢ re ¢ T

- ‘ + , >} +h . > hy + eric nn >», fe.
est je case e eory at Har S was not retroac
‘ t r , 4 . ac . 2A c - 4 > . r+ >

ve People v. Myer 4 al.3a 2 261, 233 Cai.Rptr.

~ — “

. 2 ; . rs ~ *. ery . ' + id r idr cc
264 29 P.2d 698 196 | Supreme Court did not address
+> . —€ y iio a \ on Lil Orqgeringd
+ . - r sare c ~ meus ig 4 nm ta +h be cic + ~s%
ne reversal L AnymMe HVICtiIOl On tN 4asisS oO 4 ruie

+ +} ’ ‘ . + rr ey “Hone r+ nr id 5+ ine
wi [ cnen rerused pe) ere" ‘ respongeent On GOenvicail
oo ry inne . ¢ _o Th Cc ‘ " ~ £4
re rad presenting tne ame issue. rnis issue was specifi
™ . {rawr + +he . » + s+ + ont : ir resp ndent c
rye > > 7 > ¥ renear , Ff }
: r o +} . ¥ rr . . » + - ir ry ’
. : ) ¢ prere } 0a aDpL1ie
+ hye . _ ¥ ‘ Me wl) > > ar . reatTrTearen e > ho pur
: rt+acq rear " + + ¥ ‘ re ied ¥ r ir recnonaqent'« “ase
; : ¥ y J i} i I b ie I
R¢ . ‘ + he » + 2 e +onr + > 2 ¥ ¥ at , - 4 7 rec > at herr
\ 4 e158! i eae ia
+} r Py ‘ ry mm 4 y i = 4 } . —, =~ + 4 rn fiw roc
Dre ‘ v« y iry € JIDI€E DODULaALION TLigqures
’ e T ar r : ryr ma -_ ‘ 2c eo 1 Penr e Harr
-
w € ’ nere Pe r ‘ Re 49 = ‘ 2 S276 nN. Ly
-
4
Dnt ae L | ba sehe ta _s c nr . Ts “=
26% ; ‘ 129 (1989 emphasis supplied).
Respondent petition for a writ r nabeas corpu
+ ’ 4 | , | r > ‘+ ~+ > c
é § 2254 wa lienie Dy e nited tate
-» > » + ‘ " > hie ontrtra T >» + + ‘2 | ‘+, rrnta 4 .
cme + " ’ " ‘or wl , ‘ a ead > .noare respor Ton?
» + > . > A wy " ’ ,
‘ . r IDDE . ‘ iT | Appe .
’ he AJ > > ™ > r * re . 1¢ | er > 7 >
= The Re " ‘ wa irawr + +ho atter + 4 , © the . irt ‘
A wy , + , o +
ppea inder Rule 28 the Federal Rules of Appellate
Dy a ¥ r > ‘+ , > > 4 iy > } ~ . + . ~ +
under the equal protection clause of the Fourteent!
Arm + ) . , 4 + . . . inne a+ + >
Amendmen had been violated, because nce a state ha
— ] ~ 1 sal r " lie a ) , nn 7 «yp ’
established a rule it must be applied evenhandedly.
Myer: y. wae 89 F.2q 417 421 tl Lr 199 UOT }
x
La Rue \ McCarthy 833 F.2d 14 l4. ITN r 198
-~
itina Tony: eli \ + ate + Ar ? ¥ ; af \ | l ne equal protection Ciause
+ +} co ~ co ~ oo = n+tinna An iImnn r+ n+ — rn “7 } " ati Aan 4
to this case as presenting an important or novei question of

r r

nstitutional law which would justify an exercise of this

settled [constitutional] law," Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S.

'
+
. . « patently inappropriate." R. Stern, E. Gressman &
. Ty f “ DD - - + “<> 4 + as.
. Shapiro supreme Court Practice 223 (6tn ed. 1986).
« nm —_

No. 90-112
IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

October Term, 1990

EDDIE S. YLST, Warden, Petitioner,
Vv.

VENSON LANE MYERS, Respondent.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I am a member of the Bar of
the Supreme Court of the United States and that I served a
copy of the accompanying BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR
CERTIORARI and MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA
PAUPERIS, by depositing a copy of each document in the
United States mail, first class mail, postage prepaid,

addressed as follows:

JOHN VAN de KAMP
Attorney General cf the
State of California
3580 Wilshire Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Attention: Thomas L. Willhite, Jr.

RECEIVED

AUG 2 0 1990

OFFICE ~ THE CLERK
SUPREME COURT, U.S.

All parties required to be served have been served.

Done this 16th day of August, 1990.

Deputy State Public Defender
1390 Market Street, Suite 425
San Francisco, CA 94102
Tel. No. (415) 557-1600

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the petition for a
writ of certiorari should be denied.
DATED: August 16, 1990
Respectfully submitted,

FERN M. LAETHEM
California State Public De der

MICHAEL PESCETTA
Deputy State Public Defender

Attorneys for Respondent

MP:vb

ie

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385020_2512%3A2. Public record. Not legal advice.