seal

Court Case Record The People v. Rosner F070713 UID(70bd)


The People v. Rosner Court Case Record

Court Case Number: F070713


 
Case NumberF070713
Case TitleThe People v. Rosner
Case TypeCR
StateCalifornia, CA
CountyAll Counties
CourtAppellate Court
Court Address5th Appellate District
Phone
Field Date
Close Date2/28/2017
Documentpdf

Parties

CounselNameType
Office of the Attorney General
P. O. Box 944255
Sacramento, CA 94244

George M. Hendrickson
Office of the Attorney General
P. O. Box 944255
Sacramento, CA 94244

The PeoplePlaintiff and Respondent
Elizabeth Campbell
PMB 334
3104 O Street
Sacramento, CA 95816

Jessie Shane RosnerDefendant and Appellant
Central California Appellate Program
2150 River Plaza Dr., Ste. 300
Sacramento, CA 95833

Central California Appellate ProgramInformation only
Docket (Register of Actions)
Date Description Notes
01/02/2015 Notice of appeal lodged/received (criminal). applt. appeals from order held on 12/17/14 denying petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis; copy to CCAP; to W/M
01/02/2015 Letter sent to: CCAP re: appealabiliy issue
01/08/2015 Order filed. This court is considering dismissing the above entitled appeal taken from the Superior Court's December 11, 2014, order denying a petition for writ of coram nobis. A court's denial of a writ of coram nobis is appealable, but only if appellant demonstrates a prima facie showing of merit without raising issues which were or could have been resolved in prior proceedings. (People v. Totari (2002) 28 Cal.4th 876, 885, fn. 4; People v. Shorts (1948) 32 Cal.2d 502, 506-607; People v. Gallardo (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 971, 982.) "To qualify as the basis for relief on coram nobis, newly discovered facts must establish a basic flaw that would have prevented rendition of the judgment." (People v. Kim (2009) 45 Cal.4th 1078, 1103.) Appellant is therefore granted leave to file, within 30 days from the date of this order, a letter brief setting forth a prima facie showing of merit. Appellant must "establish three elements: (1) that some fact existed which, without his fault or negligence, was not presented to the court at the trial and which would have prevented the rendition of the judgment; (2) that the new evidence does not go to the merits of the issues of fact determined at trial; and (3) that he did not know nor could he have, with due diligence, discovered the facts upon which he relies any sooner than the point at which he petitions for the writ. [Citations.]" (People v. Soriano (1987) 194 Cal.App.3d 1470, 1474.) Appellant's failure to timely respond will be construed as agreement that the appeal should be dismissed. Preparation of the record and briefing are otherwise stayed pending further order of this court. (W7)
01/23/2015 Requested - extension of time Letter brief filed. Requested for 03/11/2015 By 30 Day(s) (1st request, to file letter brief; no specific time requested); to W7 for approval
02/05/2015 Received: Letter from atty Siegel dated 1/30/15 obo applt; No POS attached (W7)
02/06/2015 Order filed. On January 8, 2015, this court filed an order considering dismissing appellant's appeal of the superior court's denial of his petition for writ of coram nobis. Appellant was granted leave to file a letter brief setting forth a prima facie case for relief on coram nobis. On January 23, 2015, appellant requested an extension of time to file his letter brief. This court grants appellant's request for an extension of time; appellant has 30 days from the filing of this order to file his letter brief in support of his appeal from the denial of the petition for coram nobis. (W7)
03/02/2015 Order filed. On January 8, 2015, this court filed an order considering dismissing appellant's appeal of the superior court's denial of his petition for writ of coram nobis. Appellant was granted leave to file a letter brief setting forth a prima face case for relief on coram nobis. Having read the letter brief submitted by appellant's counsel, this court finds appellant has made a prima facie case for writ of coram nobis, and the appeal may proceed. (W7)
03/03/2015 Filed letter from: Applt Rosner dated 2/26/15 re: The February 10th response from Ciummo and Associates informing me that Mr. Mark Siegal has responded on my behalf to the 5th Appellate District Court of Appeals...
03/06/2015 Received copy of Letter Brief dated 3/3/15 from petnr Rosner re: Case (W7)
03/26/2015 Record on appeal filed. Clerk's Tx only, 1 volume, 41 pages; ltr to parties re aob due 40 days
05/08/2015 Filed order appointing counsel (C.C.A.P. review). Defendant and Appellant: Jessie Shane Rosner Attorney: Elizabeth Campbell
05/08/2015 Appointment request for counsel filed. by Applt Rosner via e-file from CCAP.
05/12/2015 Filed letter from: Applt Rosner dated 5/7/15 re: case status
06/09/2015 Granted - extension of time. Appellant's opening brief. Due on 07/08/2015 By 30 Day(s) (1st request, 30 days to 7/8/15)
06/09/2015 Request filed to: Atty Campbell obo applt; Requesting copies of documents and orders previously filed (Letter to CCAP regarding appealability on 1/2/15; order indicating it was considering dismissing appeal...; Letter brief filed on applt's behalf on 2/5/15); (W&M)
06/17/2015 Order filed. Appellant's "REQUEST FOR COPIES OF DOCUMENTS AND ORDERS . . . " filed on June 9, 2015, is granted. The Clerk/Administrator of this court is directed to send the parties copies of this court's orders filed on January 8, 2015, February 6, 2015, and March 2, 2015, a copy of appellant's trial counsel's letter brief received on February 5, 2015, and a copy of appellant's letter brief received on March 6, 2015. (W2/CJAN)
07/16/2015 Granted - extension of time. Appellant's opening brief. Due on 08/07/2015 By 30 Day(s) (2nd request, 30 days to 8/7/15); approved by PJ
08/10/2015 Requested - extension of time Appellant's opening brief. Requested for 09/08/2015 By 32 Day(s) 3rd request; to PJ for approval
08/10/2015 Granted - extension of time. Appellant's opening brief. Due on 09/08/2015 By 32 Day(s) 3rd request approved by PJ
08/24/2015 Change of address filed for: by Atty Campbell obo applt; phone number modified
09/14/2015 Requested - extension of time Appellant's opening brief. Requested for 10/08/2015 By 30 Day(s) 4th request; to PJ for approval
09/15/2015 Granted - extension of time. Appellant's opening brief. Due on 10/08/2015 By 30 Day(s) 4th request; approved by PJ
Disposition
Description: Affirmed in full with directions
Date: 02/28/2017
Disposition Type: Final The December 11, 2014, order summarily denying the petition for writ of error coram nobis is affirmed. Upon this court's own motion, this appeal is deemed to be in part a petition for writ of habeas corpus. (In re Hochberg (1970) 2 Cal.3d 870, 875, fn. 4; In re Lawler (1979) 23 Cal.3d 190, 194.) This court concludes that trial counsel's attempt at the preliminary examination to ask questions relevant to whether the burglary was of the first or second degree (People v. Hernandez (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 438, 441), the admissions of trial counsel in the petition for writ of error coram nobis, and his declaration that was filed in superior court establish a prima facie showing that trial counsel was ineffective in not obtaining additional information regarding whether the burglary was of the first or second degree before Rosner pled nolo contendere to first degree burglary. Nothing in this opinion would prevent Rosner from raising additional issues in the superior court. The Department of Corrections is ordered to show cause before the Fresno County Superior Court, when the matter is ordered on calendar, as to why Rosner is not entitled to relief. Upon finality of this opinion in all courts in this state, the Clerk Administrator of this court is directed to send copies of this opinion, the record, and the pleadings in this case to the Fresno Superior Court. The superior court is directed to deem the petition for writ of error coram nobis to be a petition for writ of habeas corpus and to file it appropriately. Thereafter, the Fresno Superior Court is directed to appoint counsel for Rosner and conduct further proceedings in accordance with the applicable rules of the California Rules of Court, In re Hochberg, supra, 2 Cal.3d 870, and In re Lawler, supra, 23 Cal.3d 190. The written return shall be served and filed on or before 30 days after this opinion becomes final in all courts in this state, or on a date set by the superior court, whichever is later. (In re Hochber
Publication Status: By the Court - Unpublished
Author:
Participants: Poochigian, Charles S. (Concur) Gomes, Gene M. (Concur) Pena, Jr., Rosendo (Concur)
Case Citation: none