This case was last updated from California Courts of Appeal on 07/14/2022 at 02:17:24 (UTC).

In re RONALD J. McINTOSH on Habeas Corpus

Case Summary

On 06/30/2022 In re RONALD J McINTOSH on Habeas Corpus was filed as an Other lawsuit. This case was filed in California Courts of Appeal, First Appellate District - Division 5 located in Statewide, California. The Judges overseeing this case are Bible, John and Scott, Joseph. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Case Details Parties Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ***5524

  • Filing Date:

    06/30/2022

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Other

  • County, State:

    Statewide, California

Judge Details

Trial Court Judges

Bible, John

Scott, Joseph

 

Party Details

Petitioner

Ronald J. McIntosh

Respondent

The People

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Petitioner Attorneys

David W. Shapiro

Attorney at The Norton Law Firm

299 Third Street Suite 200

Oakland, CA 94607

William Fred Norton

Attorney at The Norton Law Firm

299 Third Street Suite 200

Oakland, CA 94607-4390

Gilbert G. Walton

Attorney at The Norton Law Firm

299 Third Street, Suite 200

Oakland, CA 94607

Respondent Attorney

Office of the Attorney General

455 Golden Gate Avenue - Suite 11000

San Francisco, CA 94102-7004

Court Documents

Court documents are not available for this case.

 

Docket Entries

  • 07/13/2022
  • DispositionDescription: Petition summarily denied by order; Disposition Type: Final BY THE COURT:* The petition does not contain sufficient allegations or record evidence demonstrating that petitioner exhausted his superior court habeas corpus remedy as to all claims made in this court, particularly Claims Four and Five. To avoid piecemeal review of petitioner's claims, which would be undesirable in light of their complexity and the sizable supporting record, the petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied without prejudice to being refiled in this court after petitioner exhausts all unexhausted claims in the San Mateo County Superior Court. (In re Steele (2004) 32 Cal.4th 682, 692; In re Hillery (1962) 202 Cal.App.2d 293, 294.) Any refiled petition shall include factual allegations, supported by documents, demonstrating petitioner's exhaustion of his superior court habeas corpus remedy as to all claims. (People v. Duvall (1995) 9 Cal.4th 464, 474.) Additionally, the present petition does not fully comply with rule 8.384(a)(3) and (b)(1). The petition does not consistently "support any reference to a matter in the supporting documents by a citation to its index number or letter and page," as required by rule 8.384(a)(3). Given the size of the record accompanying the petition, it is particularly important for the petition to cite to the record supporting factual references, and to do so by citing the exhibit number and point page (e.g., Exh. 3, p. 10). Additionally, the record does not include copies of all petitions previously filed in federal court, as required by rule 8.384(b)(1). Furthermore, a habeas corpus petition should include copies of reasonably available documents. (People v. Duvall, supra, 9 Cal.4th at p. 474.) Here, numerous factual statements are unaccompanied by record citations to a supporting record. Additionally, although the petition refers to some such documents, and the entire superior court record is important to enable informed review by this court, the petition does not include a complete record of the superior court habeas corpus proceedings, including all orders, informal and formal briefs/pleadings, and exhibits. Any refiled petition shall cure the foregoing issues or demonstrate good cause for not doing so. * Before Jackson, P.J., Simons, J. and Wiseman, J. (Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/13/2022
  • DocketDescription: Case complete.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/13/2022
  • DocketDescription: Order denying petition filed.; Notes: BY THE COURT:* The petition does not contain sufficient allegations or record evidence demonstrating that petitioner exhausted his superior court habeas corpus remedy as to all claims made in this court, particularly Claims Four and Five. To avoid piecemeal review of petitioner's claims, which would be undesirable in light of their complexity and the sizable supporting record, the petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied without prejudice to being refiled in this court after petitioner exhausts all unexhausted claims in the San Mateo County Superior Court. (In re Steele (2004) 32 Cal.4th 682, 692; In re Hillery (1962) 202 Cal.App.2d 293, 294.) Any refiled petition shall include factual allegations, supported by documents, demonstrating petitioner's exhaustion of his superior court habeas corpus remedy as to all claims. (People v. Duvall (1995) 9 Cal.4th 464, 474.) Additionally, the present petition does not fully comply with rule 8.384(a)(3) and (b)(1). The petition does not consistently "support any reference to a matter in the supporting documents by a citation to its index number or letter and page," as required by rule 8.384(a)(3). Given the size of the record accompanying the petition, it is particularly important for the petition to cite to the record supporting factual references, and to do so by citing the exhibit number and point page (e.g., Exh. 3, p. 10). Additionally, the record does not include copies of all petitions previously filed in federal court, as required by rule 8.384(b)(1). Furthermore, a habeas corpus petition should include copies of reasonably available documents. (People v. Duvall, supra, 9 Cal.4th at p. 474.) Here, numerous factual statements are unaccompanied by record citations to a supporting record. Additionally, although the petition refers to some such documents, and the entire superior court record is important to enable informed review by this court, the petition does not include a complete record of the superior court habeas corpus proceedings, including all orders, informal and formal briefs/pleadings, and exhibits. Any refiled petition shall cure the foregoing issues or demonstrate good cause for not doing so. * Before Jackson, P.J., Simons, J. and Wiseman, J. (Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/08/2022
  • DocketDescription: Exhibits lodged.; Notes: Appendix volumes 1-42; submitted by flash drive

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/05/2022
  • DocketDescription: Order filed.; Notes: Petitioner's application for permission to file a brief in excess of 14,000 words is granted. Additionally, petitioner's counsel shall ensure that the flash drive containing the exhibits in support of the petition is delivered to this court on or before July 8, 2022.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/30/2022
  • DocketDescription: Filed proof of service.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/30/2022
  • DocketDescription: Application filed to:; Notes: file brief in excess of 14,000 words

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/30/2022
  • DocketDescription: Filed document entitled:; Notes: Notice of Lodging Appendix of Exhibits in Support of Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Flash drive coming with volumes 1-42

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/30/2022
  • DocketDescription: Petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/11/2022
  • DocketTrial Court Name: San Mateo County Superior Court - Main (Redwood City); County: San Mateo; Trial Court Case Number: H2748; Trial Court Judge: Scott, Joseph

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/14/1989
  • DocketTrial Court Name: San Mateo County Superior Court - Main (Redwood City); County: San Mateo; Trial Court Case Number: SC023606; Trial Court Judge: Bible, John

    Read MoreRead Less
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where People is a litigant