On Monday morning, the Supreme Court will file its opinions in People v. DeHoyos and In re Figueroa. (Briefs here; oral argument videos here.) These will be the first decisions in January calendar cases.
DeHoyos involves the issue whether the Safe Neighborhood and Schools Act [Proposition 47] (Gen. Elec. (Nov. 4, 2014)), which made specified crimes misdemeanors rather than felonies, applies retroactively to a defendant who was sentenced before the Act’s effective date but whose judgment was not final until after that date. The court later asked for supplemental briefing on the significance, if any, of the decision in People v. Conley (2016) 63 Cal.4th 646 on the issues in this case. (First District, Division Five, Court of Appeal Justice Henry Needham, Jr., is the pro tem justice.)
Figueroa is a capital habeas corpus case. The court issued an order to show cause why petitioner is not entitled to relief because (1) material false evidence was admitted at the guilt phase of his trial, and (2) trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance. (First District, Division Five, Court of Appeal Justice Mark Simons is the pro tem.)
The backstory of Figueroa is interesting, and is particularly ironic in a case concerning the prosecution’s use of false evidence. The original habeas corpus petition was filed over 15 years ago. Four years later, however, the court granted leave to file an amended petition “as necessary as a result of the allegedly fraudulent work product of Habeas Corpus Resource Center (HCRC) Investigator Kathleen Culhane.” Culhane was sentenced in 2007 to five years in prison for forgery, perjury, and filing false documents in multiple death penalty habeas cases, and, according to the Los Angeles Times, was unrepentant, saying that capital punishment is “a brutal legacy of lynching” and that “I cannot have remorse for a government that kills at midnight and invests millions of dollars in the process.”
The opinions can be viewed Monday starting at 10:00 a.m.
