Lawler, In re, Cr. 20522
| Court | United States State Supreme Court (California) |
| Writing for the Court | RICHARDSON; BIRD |
| Citation | 151 Cal.Rptr. 833,23 Cal.3d 190,588 P.2d 1257 |
| Parties | , 588 P.2d 1257 In re Robert T. LAWLER on Habeas Corpus. |
| Decision Date | 25 January 1979 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 20522 |
Page 833
As Modified on Denial of Rehearing March 14, 1979.
[23 Cal.3d 191]
Page 834
[588 P.2d 1258] Evelle J. Younger, Atty. Gen., Jack W. Winkler, Chief Asst. Atty. Gen., Daniel J. Kremer, Asst. Atty. Gen., Karl J. Phaler, Michael D. Wellington, Steven V. Adler, Gary W. Schons and Alan S. Meth, Deputy Attys. Gen., for appellant.Appellate Defenders, Inc., under appointment by the Court of Appeal, and J. Perry Langford, San Diego, for respondent.
[23 Cal.3d 192] RICHARDSON, Justice.
Respondent, chairman of the Community Release Board (CRB), appeals from an order of the San Diego County Superior Court directing the CRB to strike from petitioner's prison term a one-year enhancement added pursuant to section 1170.2, subdivision (a), of the Penal Code. (All statutory references are to that code unless otherwise indicated.) The appeal is authorized by section 1506. As will appear, we have concluded that petitioner has failed to carry his burden of proving that the enhancement was improper. Accordingly, the order appealed from must be reversed with directions to dismiss the proceeding.
Petitioner Robert T. Lawler was convicted of first degree robbery (former § 211a) on his plea of guilty and under the previous Indeterminate Sentencing Law was sentenced to a prison term for an indefinite period. On December 2, 1977, after the operative date of the Determinate Sentencing Law of 1976 (DSL), the CRB, pursuant to section 1170.2, subdivision (a), calculated a determinate term of four years for petitioner, based on the newly enacted three-year middle term for robbery (§ 213), plus a one-year "enhancement." The document on which the term calculation was made, administratively denominated Form CDC 678, indicated that the reason for the enhancement was "weapons," and cited former section 3024, which specified the minimum sentence for certain armed offenders. It is undisputed, however, that the judgment of conviction did not include any express finding or recital that petitioner was armed within the meaning of section 3024.
On December 14, 1977, petitioner wrote to the sentencing court, enclosing a copy of the form on which his DSL term had been computed. The letter stated that petitioner's term had been refixed by the CRB to include the one-year enhancement for possessing a weapon provided for in section 3024; that the clerk of the court had advised him that the record did not reflect a section 3024 allegation or finding; and that his letter to the chairman of the CRB complaining about the enhancement had been to no avail. He then stated that he had already served the three-year base term and was being held only on the "violation" of section 3024, and requested that the court "officially notify the authorities here at Folsom prison and the Community Release Board as to what my legal standing is regarding any violation of pc 3024 . . . ." File stamps on the letter indicate that it was received by the court on January 4, 1978, was filed as a petition for writ of habeas corpus on January 5, and as such [23 Cal.3d 193] was granted on that date by issuance of an order directing that the CRB respond to the allegation of illegal detention set forth in the "petition."
The CRB's return to the court's order alleged that petitioner was in the lawful custody of the Department of Corrections following his conviction of first degree robbery and second degree burglary; that his term had been fixed under the DSL; that petitioner had not exhausted his administrative remedies; and that the records officer
Page 835
had mistakenly circled the number "3024" rather than "211" on Form CDC 678 in explaining the...To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Romero
...and specify the facts on which [the petitioner] bases his [or her] claim that the restraint is unlawful." (In re Lawler (1979) 23 Cal.3d 190, 194, 151 Cal.Rptr. 833, 588 P.2d 1257; see Pen.Code, § 1474.) When presented with a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, a court must first determin......
-
People v. Shoals, Nos. H008493
...has established a prima facie case for relief on habeas corpus, then an order to show cause should issue." (In re Lawler (1979) 23 Cal.3d 190, 194, 151 Cal.Rptr. 833, 588 P.2d As to the failure to proffer Levell's guilty plea, petitioner has not shown that this was a deficient performance w......
-
Pratt, In re, Cr. 37534
...the burden not only of alleging but also proving the facts on which he relies in support of his claim for relief." (In re Lawler (1979) 23 Cal.3d 190, 195, 151 Cal.Rptr. 833, 588 P.2d In the instant case, as in In re Wright (1978) 78 Cal.App.3d 788, 144 Cal.Rptr. 535, defendant's asserted g......
-
People v. Huynh, Nos. H006276
...use of a firearm. We regard this as sufficient to establish "a prima facie case for relief on habeas corpus" (In re Lawler (1979) 23 Cal.3d 190, 194, 151 Cal.Rptr. 833, 588 P.2d 1257) due to prejudice resulting from defense counsel's misadvice. (Hill v. Lockhart (8th Cir.1990) 894 F.2d 1009......
-
People v. Romero
...and specify the facts on which [the petitioner] bases his [or her] claim that the restraint is unlawful." (In re Lawler (1979) 23 Cal.3d 190, 194, 151 Cal.Rptr. 833, 588 P.2d 1257; see Pen.Code, § 1474.) When presented with a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, a court must first determin......
-
People v. Shoals, Nos. H008493
...has established a prima facie case for relief on habeas corpus, then an order to show cause should issue." (In re Lawler (1979) 23 Cal.3d 190, 194, 151 Cal.Rptr. 833, 588 P.2d As to the failure to proffer Levell's guilty plea, petitioner has not shown that this was a deficient performance w......
-
Pratt, In re, Cr. 37534
...the burden not only of alleging but also proving the facts on which he relies in support of his claim for relief." (In re Lawler (1979) 23 Cal.3d 190, 195, 151 Cal.Rptr. 833, 588 P.2d In the instant case, as in In re Wright (1978) 78 Cal.App.3d 788, 144 Cal.Rptr. 535, defendant's asserted g......
-
People v. Huynh, Nos. H006276
...use of a firearm. We regard this as sufficient to establish "a prima facie case for relief on habeas corpus" (In re Lawler (1979) 23 Cal.3d 190, 194, 151 Cal.Rptr. 833, 588 P.2d 1257) due to prejudice resulting from defense counsel's misadvice. (Hill v. Lockhart (8th Cir.1990) 894 F.2d 1009......