This case was last updated from California Courts of Appeal on 11/29/2022 at 09:04:21 (UTC).

Estrada v. The Superior Court of Alameda County

Case Summary

On 07/18/2022 Estrada filed an Other lawsuit against The Superior Court of Alameda County. This case was filed in California Courts of Appeal, First Appellate District - Division 1 located in Statewide, California. The Judge overseeing this case is Clay, C.. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Case Details Parties Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ***5625

  • Filing Date:

    07/18/2022

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Other

  • County, State:

    Statewide, California

Judge Details

Trial Court Judge

Clay, C.

 

Party Details

Petitioner

Mark Anthony Estrada

Delano, CA 93216-0567

Respondent

The Superior Court of Alameda County

Interested Party

The People

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Petitioner Attorneys

Robert Joseph Beles

Attorney at Beles & Beles Law Offices

1 Kaiser Plaza - Suite 2300

Oakland, CA 94612-3616

Paul Gilruth McCarthy

Attorney at Law Offices of Robert J. Beles

1 Kaizer Plaza, Suite 2300

Oakland, CA 94612

Interested Party Attorneys

Office of the Attorney General

455 Golden Gate Avenue - Suite 11000

San Francisco, CA 94102-7004

Office of District Attorney

1225 Fallon Street - 9Th Floor

Oakland, CA 94612

Court Documents

Court documents are not available for this case.

 

Docket Entries

  • 09/07/2022
  • DispositionDescription: Order dismissing petition; Disposition Type: Final BY THE COURT:* On August 17, 2022, this court issued a notice pursuant to Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 171, granting the superior court the power and jurisdiction to vacate its June 6, 2022 order denying petitioner's request for a certificate of probable cause and to enter in its place a new order. On September 6, 2022, in response to our notice, the superior court vacated its June 6, 2022 order and issued a new and different order granting petitioner's application. Because the superior court has now granted petitioner the relief requested in the petition, the above-captioned petition is dismissed as moot. BY THE COURT:* On August 17, 2022, this court issued a notice pursuant to Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 171, granting the superior court the power and jurisdiction to vacate its June 6, 2022 order denying petitioner's request for a certificate of probable cause and to enter in its place a new order. On September 6, 2022, in response to our notice, the superior court vacated its June 6, 2022 order and issued a new and different order granting petitioner's application. Because the superior court has now granted petitioner the relief requested in the petition, the above-captioned petition is dismissed as moot. * Before Humes, P.J., & Wiss, J. (Judge of the San Francisco County Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution).

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/07/2022
  • DocketDescription: Case complete.

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/07/2022
  • DocketDescription: Order filed.; Notes: Order dismissing petition.BY THE COURT:* On August 17, 2022, this court issued a notice pursuant to Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 171, granting the superior court the power and jurisdiction to vacate its June 6, 2022 order denying petitioner's request for a certificate of probable cause and to enter in its place a new order. On September 6, 2022, in response to our notice, the superior court vacated its June 6, 2022 order and issued a new and different order granting petitioner's application. Because the superior court has now granted petitioner the relief requested in the petition, the above-captioned petition is dismissed as moot. * Before Humes, P.J., & Wiss, J. (Judge of the San Francisco County Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution).

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/07/2022
  • DocketDescription: Received:; Notes: Received Superior Court's Order granting certificate of probable cause.

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/17/2022
  • DocketDescription: Order filed.; Notes: BY THE COURT*: Having carefully reviewed the petition and record in this writ proceeding, we advise the parties that this court might proceed by issuing a peremptory writ in the first instance. (See Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 171, 177-180.) Generally the court will employ "the accelerated Palma procedure . . . only when petitioner's entitlement to relief is so obvious that no purpose could reasonably be served by plenary consideration of the issue ... or where there is an unusual urgency requiring acceleration of the normal process." (Ng v. Superior Court (1992) 4 Cal.4th 29, 35.) On February 1, 2022, petitioner pleaded no contest to a charge of first-degree murder (Pen. Code, 187) and admitted an allegation under section 12022.53(d). At a hearing on March 2, 2022, petitioner's counsel informed the court that petitioner would ask the court to appoint counsel to review the plea transcript to see if there were grounds to withdraw the plea. On March 15, 2022, petitioner's counsel filed a motion to withdraw plea on petitioner's behalf. In a supporting declaration, petitioner claimed that "[t]hroughout the entire proceedings, it was [his] intent to take the case to trial." But he felt "pressured" and "rushed" to take the deal, and his attorney "gave [him] until noon the day after [he] heard about the deal to decide whether to accept or reject the offer." Petitioner feared his counsel "was not giving [him] the best defense." He claimed that while he was considering the deal, his counsel "tried to get [him] to feel guilty about taking the case to trial, by talking about putting the victim's family through a trial and having them look at pictures of the victim shot." Petitioner also claimed his counsel had made remarks that led him to believe she was not doing her best to defend him. According to petitioner, counsel also had an "angry outburst" after being informed he wanted to go to trial. He alleged that his attorney "said she was going to call [his] family and tell them that they were committing a criminal action by telling [him] not to take the plea. [Petitioner and his family] were afraid of her after that, due to the criminal action remark." Petitioner said he and his family "didn't want anymore [sic] confrontations with" counsel, and after her remark, he felt "pressured to take the plea." Respondent superior court held a hearing on the motion on March 28, 2022. Petitioner's counsel did not argue the motion. Instead, the court questioned petitioner extensively about his reasons for wishing to withdraw his plea. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court denied the motion to withdraw the plea. On or about May 31, 2022, petitioner's appellate counsel filed a notice of appeal with a request for certificate of probable cause. Petitioner listed three issues: Defense counsel was ineffective in advising defendant to accept the plea bargain for reasons stated in defendant's motion to withdraw his plea. Defense counsel was ineffective and in a conflict of interest in representing defendant in his motion to withdraw his plea. The trial court erred in not appointing independent un-conflicted counsel to represent defendant in his motion to withdraw his plea. On June 6, 2022, respondent denied the request for a certificate of probable cause. The instant petition was filed July 18, 2022."[T]o appeal from a judgment of conviction in the superior court following a plea of guilty, a defendant must ordinarily comply with the provisions of Penal Code section 1237.5." (People v. Holland (1978) 23 Cal.3d 77, 83, fn. omitted.) "The purpose and effect of section 1237.5 & are not to define the issues cognizable on appeal from a guilty plea, but to create a mechanism for trial court determination of whether an appeal raises any nonfrivolous cognizable issue, i.e., any nonfrivolous issue going to the legality of the proceedings." (People v. Hoffard (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1170, 1179.) Section 1237.5 authorizes the superior court to "review the statement of the grounds of the appeal to preclude those appeals which raise no issues cognizable after a guilty plea or which raise cognizable issues which are 'clearly frivolous and vexatious . . . .' " (People v. Holland, supra, 23 Cal.3d at pp. 83-84.) The Supreme Court has made clear that trial courts may refuse to issue the certificate only in the clearest cases. "The trial court must issue the certificate if the defendant's statement under section 1237.5 presents 'any cognizable issue for appeal which is not clearly frivolous and vexatious . . . .' " (People v. Johnson (2009) 47 Cal.4th 668, 676, first italics added.) In reviewing a request for a certificate of probable cause, "[i]t is not the trial court's responsibility to determine if there was an error in the proceedings. The trial court's sole objective is to eliminate those appeals 'having no possible legal basis' by refusing to issue a certificate of probable cause." (People v. Holland, supra, 23 Cal.3d at p. 84.) In this context, a finding that there is probable cause for issuance of the certificate does not mean that the defendant has shown a "probable ground for reversal of the judgment." (People v. Ribero (1971) 4 Cal.3d 55, 63, fn. 4.) "Rather the test that must have been intended to apply is whether the appeal is clearly frivolous and vexatious or whether it involves an honest difference of opinion." (Ibid.) Here, it appears that petitioner has presented at least one cognizable issue that is not clearly frivolous or vexatious. He claims he was pressured and threatened by his attorney into accepting the no contest plea when his intention was to go to trial. (See In re Vargas (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1125, 1142-1143 [where defendant's "unprepared and overbearing" attorney misrepresented terms of plea bargain and pressured him to accept it, evidentiary hearing was required to determine whether plea was voluntarily made].) He also claims that he was effectively deprived of the assistance of counsel at his plea withdrawal hearing when his counsel failed to argue the motion to withdraw the plea on his behalf. (See People v. Earp (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 1223, 1229 [plea withdrawal hearing is a critical stage of the proceedings, and defendant who was left without counsel at such a hearing has shown constitutional error under the standard of United States v. Cronic (1984) 466 U.S. 648].) Although we express no view on the merits of these arguments, we cannot say as a matter of law that the grounds petitioner presented in his request for a certificate of probable cause were so clearly frivolous or vexatious as to require denial of the request. (People v. Hoffard, supra, 10 Cal.4th at pp. 1178-1179.)Accordingly, at any time within 30 days of the date of this order, the superior court shall have the power and jurisdiction to vacate its June 6, 2022 order denying petitioner's request for a certificate of probable cause and to enter in its place a new order in accord with the views expressed herein. (See Brown, Winfield, & Canzoneri, Inc. v. Superior Court (2010) 47 Cal.4th 1233, 1244.) If respondent chooses to reconsider its order, it "must inform the parties that it is considering taking such action and provide them with an opportunity to be heard." (Id. at p. 1250.) If the superior court so acts, the parties are instructed to immediately inform this court and provide any new orders issued by respondent. In the event the superior court grants petitioner's request for a certificate of probable cause, this petition will be dismissed as moot. (Id. at p. 1244.) Should respondent decline to follow this course of action, real party will be permitted to file opposition to the issuance of a peremptory writ in the first instance. (Ibid.) Date: __________________ _____________________________ P.J. * Before Humes, P.J., & Wiss, J. (Judge of the San Francisco County Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/18/2022
  • DocketDescription: Filed proof of service.

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/18/2022
  • DocketDescription: Exhibits lodged.; Notes: Exhibits 1 - 8

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/18/2022
  • DocketDescription: Filed petition for writ of:; Notes: Mandamus

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/14/2022
  • DocketTrial Court Name: Alameda County Superior Court - Main; County: Alameda; Trial Court Case Number: 464391; Trial Court Judge: Clay, C.

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/28/2022
  • DocketTrial Court Name: Alameda County Superior Court - Main; County: Alameda; Trial Court Case Number: 464391; Trial Court Judge: Clay, C.

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where The Superior Court of Alameda County is a litigant

Latest cases where People is a litigant