seal

Court Case Record The People v. Wu A142265 UID(fd5e)


The People v. Wu Court Case Record

Court Case Number: A142265


 
Case NumberA142265
Case TitleThe People v. Wu
Case TypeCR
StateCalifornia, CA
CountyAll Counties
CourtAppellate Court
Court Address1st Appellate District
Phone
Field Date
Close Date1/20/2017
Documentpdf

Parties

CounselNameType
Office of the Attorney General
455 Golden Gate Avenue - Suite 11000
San Francisco, CA 94102-7004

Contact Name: Elizabeth W. Hereford

The PeoplePlaintiff and Respondent
First District Appellate Project
First District Appellate Project
475 Fourteenth Street, Suite 650
Oakland, CA 94612

Neil Jacob Rosenbaum
Rosenbaum & Associates
247 Hartford Street
San Francisco, CA 94114

Hong Ri WuDefendant and Appellant
Docket (Register of Actions)
Date Description Notes
06/30/2014 Notice of appeal lodged/received (criminal).
08/08/2014 Counsel appointment order filed. Neil J. Rosenbaum (Ind/40 days)
08/13/2014 Record on appeal filed. CT3 - RT13 (including RT of Prelim. Hearing) Confidential Documents: Psychiatric Evaluations (CT Pgs. 85-92; 120-146) Exhibit (CT Pgs. 625-629 (O+2)) (1 Box)
08/13/2014 Marsden transcript filed. RT 07/13/11, Vol. 3, Pgs. 301-309 (O+2) RT 10/31/13, Vol. 4, Pgs. 311-322 (O+2) RT 12/17/12, Vol. 7, Pgs. 626-632 (O+2) RT 05/09/13, Pgs. 638-645 (O+2)
08/13/2014 Marsden transcript sent. 1 copy of each Marsden transcript to appellant's appointed attorney: Neil Jacob Rosenbaum Rosenbaum & Associates 247 Hartford Street San Francisco, CA 94114
08/13/2014 Probation report filed. CT Pgs. 564-572; 637-644.
08/13/2014 Record in box. 1 box
08/29/2014 Received copy of: letter dated 8/27/14 by Neil Rosenbaum counsel for appellant> Re: Request to clarify or correct the two minute orders
09/16/2014 Filed declaration of: Superior Court Clerk Katie Womack> On August 29, 2014 I received a letter from Neil J. Rosenbaum, attorney of record to Hong Ri Wu, asking for clarification of conflicting entries in the Clerk's Transcript; Pages 81-82 of Volume I of the Clerk's Transcript are on August 30, 2011 Court Order reading "Motion is denied." However pages 83-84 of Volume I of the Clerk's Transcript are a Court Minute Order for the same day and same proceeding, August 30, 2011, reading "Motion is granted." Upon consultation with Courtroom Clerk Sandra Scott, it was determined that the motion was in fact granted as reflected on the Court Minute Order, however the corrected Court Order was never placed in the docket file folder. Clerk Scott produced is supplemented to the record hereto.
09/16/2014 Supplemental record/transcript filed. Copy of Amended Court Order - filed 9/4/14
09/19/2014 Requested - extension of time. Appellant's opening brief. Requested for 10/22/2014 By 30 Day(s)
09/19/2014 Granted - extension of time. Appellant's opening brief. Due on 10/22/2014 By 30 Day(s)
10/15/2014 Motion/application to augment record filed. Appellant's motion to augment the record on appeal and request for EOT to file AOB after the filing of the augmentation
10/17/2014 Order filed. BY THE COURT: The court rules on appellant Hong Ri Wu's motion to augment the appellate record, filed on October 15, 2014, as follows: (1) The items listed in paragraphs 1 through 7 and 10 through 12 of appellant's motion are exhibits used below. Appellant is directed to follow the procedures set forth in California Rules of Court, rules 8.224 and 8.320(e) for transmission of exhibits to this court. The motion is therefore denied as to these items. (2) Appellant's request to augment the record with the reporter's transcript of the prosecutor's and defense counsel's opening statements (paragraphs 8 and 9) is denied without prejudice to filing a subsequent motion that "establish[es] with some certainty how the requested materials may be useful on appeal." (Ct. App., First Dist., Local Rules of Ct., rule 7(d), Augmentation of Record.; see also Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.320(c)(3) [normal record in criminal appeal does not include opening statements].) (3) Appellant's deadline for filing an opening brief shall be extended to 30 days after the filing of this order. Should counsel take additional steps to augment the record with the items described above, he may seek additional extensions of time if supported by good cause.
10/31/2014 Record omission letter received. Appellant
11/03/2014 Motion/application to augment record filed. Appellant's supplemental motion to augment the record on appeal and request for a 30 day extension of time to file the opening brief after the augmentation.
11/04/2014 Augmentation granted. (See order.) AOB due 30 days after augmentation
11/10/2014 Filed declaration of: Katie Womack, Deputy Clerk of the superior court dated 11/6/14> Defense Exhibit GG (report of Katrina Peters, M.D.) was certified to the Court of Appeal as a sealed record on August 13, 2014, Clerk's Transcript pages 626-629, and therefore is not included in this transmittal. people's Exhibit 202 (corrected translation of appellant's statement) was re-marked as People's Exhibit 39 during trial. People's Exhibit 39 was certified to the Court of Appeal on August 13, 2014, Clerk's Transcript pages 426-427. The exhibit therefore is not included in this transmittal.
11/10/2014 Confidential document filed********* ***MAY NOT BE EXAMINED WITHOUT COURT ORDER*** Defense Exhibits: AA, CC, DD and EE (copies only)
11/10/2014 Filed augmented record pursuant to rule 8.340. Copy of Defendant's Exhibit I
11/10/2014 Exhibits lodged. ***RETURN TO SAN FRANCISCO AFTER CASE IS COMPLETE*** People's Exhibit: 49, 201 and 203 (3 DVD's)
11/17/2014 Application filed to: Appellant's application to view sealed records, etc.
Disposition
Description: Reversed & remanded to trial court w/directions
Date: 01/20/2017
Status: Final
Publication Status: Signed Unpublished
Author: Humes, James M.
Participants: Dondero, Robert L. (Concur) Banke, Kathleen M. (Concur)
Case Citation: none