This case was last updated from California Courts of Appeal on 06/02/2022 at 04:08:06 (UTC).


Case Summary

On 11/08/2021 In re JOSE GUADALUPE AMEZQUITA on Habeas Corpus was filed as an Other lawsuit. This case was filed in California Courts of Appeal, Second Appellate District - Division 5 located in Statewide, California. The Judge overseeing this case is Magno, Teresa. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Case Details Parties Dockets


Case Details

  • Case Number:


  • Filing Date:


  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:


  • County, State:

    Statewide, California

Judge Details

Trial Court Judge

Magno, Teresa


Party Details


Jose Guadalupe Amezquita

Soledad, CA 93960


Superior Court of Los Angeles County

The People

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Respondent Attorneys

Hon. Teresa P. Magno

Compton Courthouse 200 West Compton Blvd., Dept. F

Compton, CA 90220

Office of the Attorney General

300 South Spring St. 1St Floor

Los Angeles, CA 90013

Office of the District Attorney

320 W. Temple St. #540

Los Angeles, CA 90012

Court Documents

Court documents are not available for this case.


Docket Entries

  • 12/09/2021
  • DispositionDescription: Petition summarily denied by order; Disposition Type: Final

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/09/2021
  • DocketDescription: Case complete.

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/09/2021
  • DocketDescription: Order denying petition filed.; Notes: The court has read and considered the petition for writ of habeas corpus filed November 8, 2021. The petition is denied. Petitioner is procedurally defaulted from challenging the judgment due to his inadequately explained delay in seeking relief. (In re Clark (1993) 5 Cal.4th 750, 783.) Additionally, petitioner's claims could have been, but were not, raised on appeal. Therefore, he is barred from raising them in a petition for writ of habeas corpus. (In re Harris (1993) 5 Cal.4th 813, 826; Clark, supra, 5 Cal.4th at p. 756; In re Waltreus (1965) 62 Cal.2d 218, 225.) Petitioner fails to demonstrate an exception should apply, as the evidence he offers is not "evidence that has been discovered after trial, that could not have been discovered prior to trial by the exercise of due diligence, and is admissible and not merely cumulative, corroborative, collateral, or impeaching." (Pen. Code, 1473, subd. (b)(3)(B).) Nor is the evidence "credible, material, presented without substantial delay, and of such decisive force and value that it would have more likely than not changed the outcome of trial." (Pen. Code, 1473, subd. (b)(3)(A).) Further, petitioner fails to establish a prima facie case of ineffective assistance of counsel. (See Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 689-691, 693-694.)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/22/2021
  • DocketDescription: Filed proof of service.; Notes: Proof of service on trial court and Attorney General

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/08/2021
  • DocketDescription: Letter sent to:; Notes: Notice of non-compliance mailed to petitioner.

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/08/2021
  • DocketDescription: Petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed.

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less