Error and/or relief
The habeas corpus writ is granted. The matter is remanded for the court to hold an evidentiary hearing to determine various identified aspects of allegedly false testimony and its impact on the jury’s decision to convict the defendant.
First Holding:
The People argue that the claim is procedurally barred under the contemporaneous objection rule, and the false testimony was not material. Also, the People assert the claim is prohibited because the defendant failed to pursue them on direct appeal, citing Sakarias and Dixon.
Petitioner argues that the assertions of procedural default do not bar the presentation of the claims in these proceedings, citing Glossip), in which the United States Supreme Court held that it is the prosecution’s duty to correct false testimony when it appears.
Authority:
In re Sakarias (2005) 35 Cal.4th 140, 169
In re Dixon (1953) 41 Cal.2d 756, 759
Glossip v. Oklahoma (2025) 604 U.S. 226, 253, fn. 10 [even if the defense had made a conscious choice not to raise the issue of the false testimony, that would be irrelevant.]
Second Holding:
Petitioner alleged that the claim was being raised presently under the authority of SB 97, which went into effect on January 1, 2024, and allows for a writ of habeas corpus to be prosecuted on the additional bases of the discovery of new evidence that has not been previously presented and heard at trial and has been discovered after trial.
The People have not directly addressed this assertion, so we conclude that, in issuing the order to show cause, the Supreme Court found the petition was timely.
(Gary note: the Court of Appeal denied the defendant’s first petition for writ of habeas corpus, so he petitioned for review in the Supreme Court, which remanded the matter to the Court of Appeal to issue an order to show cause.)
Authority:
PEN 1473(b)(1)(A)
Third Holding:
In reviewing a habeas petition, the Supreme Court (or any other court considering such a petition) performs a gatekeeping function of determining whether it states a prima facie case for relief and whether the stated claims are procedurally barred. If the petition meets these requirements, the court must issue a writ of habeas corpus or order to show cause, receive a return and traverse, and may, if necessary, order an evidentiary hearing on the claims.
Authority:
In re Cook (2019) 7 Cal.5th 439, 457
Fourth Holding:
The Supreme Court’s direction to an appellate court to issue an order to show cause why the relief sought in the petition should not be granted signifies its preliminary determination that the petitioner has made a prima facie statement of specific facts which, if established, entitle [petitioner] to habeas corpus relief under existing law.
Authority:
In re Serrano (1995) 10 Cal.4th 447, 454-455
People v. Duvall (1995) 9 Cal. 4th 464, 475
Fifth Holding:
The issuance of the order to show cause creates a cause giving the People a right to reply to the petition by a return and to otherwise participate in the court’s decisionmaking process. It is through the return and the traverse that the issues are joined in a habeas corpus proceeding.
Once the issues have been joined in this way, the court must determine whether an evidentiary hearing is needed. If the written return admits allegations in the petition that, if true, justify the relief sought, the court may grant relief without an evidentiary hearing. If the return and traverse reveal that petitioner’s entitlement to relief hinges on the resolution of factual disputes, then the court should order an evidentiary hearing.
Authority:
In re Serrano (1995) 10 Cal.4th 447, 455
People v. Romero (1994) 8 Cal.4th 728, 739-740
Sixth Holding:
It is established that a conviction obtained through use of false evidence, known to be such by representatives of the State, must fall under the Fourteenth Amendment. The same result obtains when the State, although not soliciting false evidence, allows it to go uncorrected when it appears. To establish a Napue violation, a defendant must show that the prosecution knowingly solicited false testimony or knowingly allowed it to go uncorrected when it appeared.
Authority:
Napue v. lllinois (1959) 360 U.S. 264, 269
People v. Carrasco (2014) 59 Cal.4th 924, 966-967
Seventh Holding:
If the defendant makes such a showing, a new trial is warranted so long as the false testimony may have had an effect on the outcome of the trial,—that is, if it in any reasonable likelihood could have affected the judgment of the jury. In effect, this materiality standard requires the beneficiary of the constitutional error to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained. Evidence can be material even if it goes only to the credibility of the witness.
Authority:
Glossip v. Oklahoma (2025) 604 U.S. 226, 246
Napue v. lllinois (1959) 360 U.S. 264, 269
Eighth Holding:
The Court of Appeal is ill-suited to make factual determinations. For this reason, we cannot simply order a new trial, and, instead, must remand the matter to the superior court with directions to conduct an evidentiary hearing to (1) the basis on which the paramedic based his testimony that there were two gunshot wounds; (2) whether the prosecution possessed the autopsy report and the police report summarizing the findings of that report, and, if not, why; (3) whether the autopsy report was provided to petitioner’s trial counsel in discovery, and, if not, why this would not constitute a Brady violation; (4) why the false testimony of the paramedic was not timely corrected; (5) why Detectives [A] and [B] did not testify about the evidence collected at the scene and the results of the autopsy; and (6) why a new trial should not be ordered.
Authority:
People v. Patterson (2017) 2 Cal.5th 885, 901 [Ordinarily, an evidentiary hearing is the appropriate means of resolving factual disputes of this nature]
Brady v. Maryland (1963) 373 U.S. 83, 87