58 California opinions name it 3 courts 1947–2026 14 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
In Re Scottgreen2 sentences2007The central reason for referring a habeas corpus claim for an evidentiary hearing is to obtain credibility determinations (In re Scott (2003) 29 Cal.4th 783, 824 [ 129 Cal.Rptr.2d 605 , 61 P.3d 402 ]); consequently, we give special deference to the referee on factual questions ‘requiring resolution of testimonial conflicts and assessment of witnesses’ credibility, because the referee has the opportunity to observe the witnesses’ demeanor and manner of testifying’ (In re Malone[, supra,] 12 Cal.4th [at p.] 946 . . .). 2007The central reason for referring a habeas corpus claim for an evidentiary hearing is to obtain credibility determinations (In re Scott (2003) 29 Cal.4th 783, 824 [ 129 Cal.Rptr.2d 605 , 61 P.3d 402 ]); consequently, we give special deference to the referee on factual questions ‘requiring resolution of testimonial conflicts and assessment of witnesses’ credibility, because the referee has the opportunity to observe the witnesses’ demeanor and manner of testifying’ (In re Malone[, supra,] 12 Cal.4th [at p.] 946 . . .). | 5 | 5 |
In Re Malonegreen2 sentences2007The central reason for referring a habeas corpus claim for an evidentiary hearing is to obtain credibility determinations (In re Scott (2003) 29 Cal.4th 783, 824 [ 129 Cal.Rptr.2d 605 , 61 P.3d 402 ]); consequently, we give special deference to the referee on factual questions “requiring resolution of testimonial conflicts and assessment of witnesses’ credibility, because the referee has the opportunity to observe the witnesses’ demeanor and manner of testifying” (In re Malone (1996) 12 Cal.4th 935, 946 [ 50 Cal.Rptr.2d 281 , 911 P.2d 468 ]).’ ” (In re Freeman *640 (2006) 38 Cal.4th 630, 635 [ 2007The central reason for referring a habeas corpus claim for an evidentiary hearing is to obtain credibility determinations (In re Scott (2003) 29 Cal.4th 783, 824 [ 129 Cal.Rptr.2d 605 , 61 P.3d 402 ]); consequently, we give special deference to the referee on factual questions “requiring resolution of testimonial conflicts and assessment of witnesses’ credibility, because the referee has the opportunity to observe the witnesses’ demeanor and manner of testifying” (In re Malone (1996) 12 Cal.4th 935, 946 [ 50 Cal.Rptr.2d 281 , 911 P.2d 468 ]).’ ” (In re Freeman *640 (2006) 38 Cal.4th 630, 635 [ | 4 | 5 |
In Re Hallgreen2 sentences2017(See In re Hall , supra , 30 Cal.3d at p. 424 , 179 Cal.Rptr. 223 , 637 P.2d 690 [issuance of writ of habeas corpus was justified on ground that identification testimony "was false, albeit unintentionally so"].) A habeas petitioner is not required to show that false evidence was the result of perjury, or that prosecution or its agents were aware of the false nature of the evidence. (§ 1473, subd. (c).) Various dictionaries define the word "false" in different ways, but in the context of a habeas corpus claim, "false" evidence most closely means that *796 the evidence was "not genuine." (Webste 2017(See In re Hall , supra , 30 Cal.3d at p. 424 , 179 Cal.Rptr. 223 , 637 P.2d 690 [issuance of writ of habeas corpus was justified on ground that identification testimony "was false, albeit unintentionally so"].) A habeas petitioner is not required to show that false evidence was the result of perjury, or that prosecution or its agents were aware of the false nature of the evidence. (§ 1473, subd. (c).) Various dictionaries define the word "false" in different ways, but in the context of a habeas corpus claim, "false" evidence most closely means that *796 the evidence was "not genuine." (Webste | 3 | 4 |
People v. Bamberggreen2 sentences2017(See In re Hall , supra , 30 Cal.3d at p. 424 , 179 Cal.Rptr. 223 , 637 P.2d 690 [issuance of writ of habeas corpus was justified on ground that identification testimony "was false, albeit unintentionally so"].) A habeas petitioner is not required to show that false evidence was the result of perjury, or that prosecution or its agents were aware of the false nature of the evidence. (§ 1473, subd. (c).) Various dictionaries define the word "false" in different ways, but in the context of a habeas corpus claim, "false" evidence most closely means that *796 the evidence was "not genuine." (Webste 2017(See In re Hall , supra , 30 Cal.3d at p. 424 , 179 Cal.Rptr. 223 , 637 P.2d 690 [issuance of writ of habeas corpus was justified on ground that identification testimony "was false, albeit unintentionally so"].) A habeas petitioner is not required to show that false evidence was the result of perjury, or that prosecution or its agents were aware of the false nature of the evidence. (§ 1473, subd. (c).) Various dictionaries define the word "false" in different ways, but in the context of a habeas corpus claim, "false" evidence most closely means that *796 the evidence was "not genuine." (Webste | 3 | 3 |
In Re Thomasgreen2 sentences2018The central reason for referring a habeas corpus claim for an evidentiary hearing is to obtain credibility determinations [citation]; consequently, we give special deference to the referee on factual questions “requiring resolution of testimonial conflicts and assessment of witnesses’ credibility, because the referee has the opportunity to observe the witnesses’ demeanor and manner of testifying.” ’ ” (In re Lawley (2008) 42 Cal.4th 1231, 1241 , quoting In re Thomas (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1249, 1256 .) B. 2018The central reason for referring a habeas corpus claim for an evidentiary hearing is to obtain credibility determinations [citation]; consequently, we give special deference to the referee on factual questions “requiring resolution of testimonial conflicts and assessment of witnesses’ credibility, because the referee has the opportunity to observe the witnesses’ demeanor and manner of testifying.” ’ ” (In re Lawley (2008) 42 Cal.4th 1231, 1241 , quoting In re Thomas (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1249, 1256 .) B. | 2 | 7 |
In Re Lawleygreen2 sentences2025(People v. Patton (2025) 17 Cal.5th 549 , 566.) “[A] ‘prima facie showing’ [normally] connotes an evidentiary showing that is made without regard to credibility. . . . [¶] This is particularly true when [as here] the prima facie showing merely triggers an evidentiary hearing, at which any necessary credibility determinations can still be made.” (People v. Johnson (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 1155, 1163 , italics added; see In re Lawley (2008) 42 Cal.4th 1231, 1241 [“ ‘The central reason for referring a habeas corpus claim for an evidentiary hearing is to obtain credibility determinations’ ”].) As su 2020(See In re Serrano (1995) 10 Cal.4th 447, 456 (Serrano)8; see also In re Lawley (2008) 42 Cal.4th 1231, 1241 [observing “ ‘[t]he central reason for referring a habeas corpus claim for an evidentiary hearing is to obtain credibility determinations’ ”].) However, if the record, including the court’s own documents, “contain[s] facts refuting the allegations made in the petition,” then “the court is justified in making a credibility determination adverse to the petitioner.” (Serrano, supra, 10 Cal.4th at 8 We recognize that, in Serrano, the California Supreme Court focused on petitions to which no | 2 | 4 |
In re Lozagreen2 sentences2021(In re Parrish (2020) 58 Cal.App.5th 539 , 541.) “In a habeas corpus challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support a special circumstance finding, the ‘standard of review . . . is whether, when evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value is viewed “in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the allegation beyond a reasonable doubt.” [Citations.] The standard is the same under the state and federal due process clauses. [Citation.] We presume, in support of the judgment, the existence of every fact 2021(In re Parrish (2020) 58 Cal.App.5th 539 , 541.) “In a habeas corpus challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support a special circumstance finding, the ‘standard of review . . . is whether, when evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value is viewed “in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the allegation beyond a reasonable doubt.” [Citations.] The standard is the same under the state and federal due process clauses. [Citation.] We presume, in support of the judgment, the existence of every fact | 2 | 4 |
People v. Richardsgreen2 sentences2017First, a habeas petitioner seeking relief must show by a preponderance of the evidence "that false evidence was offered against him at trial." ( In re Richards (2012) 55 Cal.4th 948 , 976, 150 Cal.Rptr.3d 84 , 289 P.3d 860 .) Second, courts then evaluate whether that "false evidence was material." ( In re Richards (2016) 63 Cal.4th 291 , 312, 202 Cal.Rptr.3d 678 , 371 P.3d 195 ( Richards ).) That is, courts look at the false evidence and ask whether it was of such significance " 'that with reasonable probability it could have affected the outcome.' " (§ 1473, subd. (b) ; In re Sassounian (1995 2017First, a habeas petitioner seeking relief must show by a preponderance of the evidence "that false evidence was offered against him at trial." ( In re Richards (2012) 55 Cal.4th 948 , 976, 150 Cal.Rptr.3d 84 , 289 P.3d 860 .) Second, courts then evaluate whether that "false evidence was material." ( In re Richards (2016) 63 Cal.4th 291 , 312, 202 Cal.Rptr.3d 678 , 371 P.3d 195 ( Richards ).) That is, courts look at the false evidence and ask whether it was of such significance " 'that with reasonable probability it could have affected the outcome.' " (§ 1473, subd. (b) ; In re Sassounian (1995 | 2 | 3 |
People v. Vivargreen2 sentences2022(Vivar, supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 537 (conc. & dis. opn. of Corrigan, J.).) [“[w]e should be hesitant here to uncritically apply a habeas corpus standard of review to appellate review of statutory claims.”].) Moreover, we find Perez to be the most persuasive in answering the question posed here because our Supreme Court answered an analogous question therein and held that substantial evidence review applied to judicial factual 18 findings derived from a record of conviction. 2022(Vivar, supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 537 (conc. & dis. opn. of Corrigan, J.) [“[w]e should be hesitant here to uncritically apply a habeas corpus standard of review to appellate review of statutory claims”].) 8 solid value from which a reasonable trier of fact could find beyond a reasonable doubt that in committing the robbery, Snow acted with reckless indifference to human life. | 2 | 2 |
In Re Freemangreen2 sentences2007The central reason for referring a habeas corpus claim for an evidentiary hearing is to obtain credibility determinations (In re Scott (2003) 29 Cal.4th 783, 824 [ 129 Cal.Rptr.2d 605 , 61 P.3d 402 ]); consequently, we give special deference to the referee on factual questions “requiring resolution of testimonial conflicts and assessment of witnesses’ credibility, because the referee has the opportunity to observe the witnesses’ demeanor and manner of testifying” (In re Malone (1996) 12 Cal.4th 935, 946 [ 50 Cal.Rptr.2d 281 , 911 P.2d 468 ]).’ ” (In re Freeman *640 (2006) 38 Cal.4th 630, 635 [ 2007The central reason for referring a habeas corpus claim for an evidentiary hearing is to obtain credibility determinations (In re Scott (2003) 29 Cal.4th 783, 824 [ 129 Cal.Rptr.2d 605 , 61 P.3d 402 ]); consequently, we give special deference to the referee on factual questions “requiring resolution of testimonial conflicts and assessment of witnesses’ credibility, because the referee has the opportunity to observe the witnesses’ demeanor and manner of testifying” (In re Malone (1996) 12 Cal.4th 935, 946 [ 50 Cal.Rptr.2d 281 , 911 P.2d 468 ]).’ ” (In re Freeman *640 (2006) 38 Cal.4th 630, 635 [ | 2 | 2 |
| In Re Hochberggreen | 2 | 2 |
| Burger v. Kempgreen | 2 | 2 |
Strickland v. Washingtongreen2 sentences2018Ineffective Assistance Claims To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, petitioner “must show that his attorney’s ‘representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness’ ‘under prevailing professional norms’ ([Strickland], supra, 466 U.S. at p. 688 ]; In re Hardy (2007) 41 Cal.4th 977, 1018 ) and ‘that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. 2018Ineffective Assistance Claims To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, petitioner “must show that his attorney’s ‘representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness’ ‘under prevailing professional norms’ ([Strickland], supra, 466 U.S. at p. 688 ]; In re Hardy (2007) 41 Cal.4th 977, 1018 ) and ‘that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. | 1 | 3 |
In Re Hardygreen2 sentences2009In the context of a habeas corpus claim, "`"newly discovered evidence" is evidence that could not have been discovered with reasonable diligence prior to judgment.' (§ 1473.6, subd. (b).)" ( In re Hardy (2007) 41 Cal.4th 977, 1016 [ 63 Cal.Rptr.3d 845 , 163 P.3d 853 ].) At the time of Ebaniz's first trial, *756 Seriales was in custody, had been charged with special circumstance murder and other offenses arising out of Eric Jones's death, and was facing the death penalty. 2009In the context of a habeas corpus claim, "`"newly discovered evidence" is evidence that could not have been discovered with reasonable diligence prior to judgment.' (§ 1473.6, subd. (b).)" ( In re Hardy (2007) 41 Cal.4th 977, 1016 [ 63 Cal.Rptr.3d 845 , 163 P.3d 853 ].) At the time of Ebaniz's first trial, *756 Seriales was in custody, had been charged with special circumstance murder and other offenses arising out of Eric Jones's death, and was facing the death penalty. | 1 | 3 |
People v. Martinezgreen2 sentences2015(See People v. Martinez (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 1169, 1190 (Martinez) [holding that trial counsel’s “fail[ure] to object to the trial court’s mistaken use of the minimum statutory fine that was in effect at sentencing to calculate appellant’s restitution fund fine,” in violation of ex post facto laws, constituted ineffective assistance].) 10 which is shown by the appeal record to be vulnerable to habeas corpus proceedings based upon constitutional grounds may be considered upon direct appeal. [Citations.]”].) In addition, we disagree with respondent’s contention that the record is unclear that 2014(See People v. Martinez (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 1169, 1189 .) As for forfeiture, if we agreed with the People, it would only lead to a habeas corpus claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. | 1 | 2 |
| In Re Hillerygreen | 1 | 2 |
| In Re Bakergreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Mayfieldgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Scarbroughgreen | 1 | 1 |
| France v. Superior Court of Californiagreen | 1 | 1 |
| In re Longgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Lucido v. Superior Courtgreen | 1 | 1 |
| In Re Serranogreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Turnergreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Norwoodgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Barbergreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Blancogreen | 1 | 1 |
| In Re Moffettgreen | 1 | 1 |
| In Re Carissa G.green | 1 | 1 |
| In Re Tomi C.green | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Hillgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Hillgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Mendoza Tellogreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Deeregreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Davenportgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Younger v. Solomongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Clark
green
2 sentences2021“When a defendant seeks habeas corpus relief, the underlying judgment is presumed valid. [Citation.] In a habeas corpus challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support a special circumstance finding, the ‘standard of review . . . is whether, when evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value is viewed “in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the allegation beyond a reasonable doubt.” ’ ” (In re Bennett (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 1002, 1018 , quoting Clark, supra, 63 Cal.4th at p. 610 .) A petitioner wh 2021In a habeas corpus challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support a [ ] [jury’s] finding, the “standard of review . . . is whether, when evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value is viewed ‘in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of 22 fact could have found the essential elements of the allegation beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ” ’ ” (Jones, supra, 56 Cal.App.5th at p. 483, quoting In re Bennett (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 1002, 1018 , quoting People v. Clark (2016) 63 Cal.4th 522, 610 .) For the reasons explained, a petition under section 1170.95 is | 10 | 2018–2022 |
In re Bennett
green
2 sentences2021“When a defendant seeks habeas corpus relief, the underlying judgment is presumed valid. [Citation.] In a habeas corpus challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support a special circumstance finding, the ‘standard of review . . . is whether, when evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value is viewed “in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the allegation beyond a reasonable doubt.” ’ ” (In re Bennett (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 1002, 1018 , quoting Clark, supra, 63 Cal.4th at p. 610 .) A petitioner wh 2021In a habeas corpus challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support a [ ] [jury’s] finding, the “standard of review . . . is whether, when evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value is viewed ‘in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of 22 fact could have found the essential elements of the allegation beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ” ’ ” (Jones, supra, 56 Cal.App.5th at p. 483, quoting In re Bennett (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 1002, 1018 , quoting People v. Clark (2016) 63 Cal.4th 522, 610 .) For the reasons explained, a petition under section 1170.95 is | 6 | 2019–2021 |
People v. Banks
green
2 sentences2022The Banks and Clark factors overlap, and “ ‘[n]o one of these considerations is necessary, nor is any one of them necessarily sufficient.’ ” ( Clark, supra, 63 Cal.4th at pp. 615, 618; Banks, supra, 61 Cal.4th at p. 803 .) Reese “is entitled to habeas corpus relief ‘ “if there is no material dispute as to the facts relating to his conviction and if it appears that the statute under which he was convicted did not prohibit his conduct.” ’ [Citation.]” (Scoggins, at p. 676.) Because this court’s 2007 opinion was issued without the benefit of Banks, Clark, and Scoggins, we do not limit our review 2021(Scoggins, supra, 9 Cal.5th at p. 677.) The Banks and Clark 15 factors overlap, and “ ‘[n]o one of these considerations is necessary, nor is any one of them necessarily sufficient.’ ” ( Clark, supra, 63 Cal.4th at pp. 614–615, 618; Banks, supra, 61 Cal.4th at p. 803 .) Smith “is entitled to habeas corpus relief ‘ “if there is no material dispute as to the facts relating to his conviction and if it appears that the statute under which he was convicted did not prohibit his conduct.” ’ [Citation.]” (Scoggins, supra, 9 Cal.5th at p. 676.) As noted, at Smith’s request, we have judicially noticed th | 4 | 2018–2022 |
People v. Duvall
green
2 sentences2024(In re Reno, supra, 55 Cal.4th at p. 500 .) In addition to requiring that habeas corpus petitions state “fully and with particularity the facts on which relief is sought,” our Supreme Court has indicated that habeas petitions should also “include copies of reasonably available documentary evidence supporting the claim, including pertinent portions of trial transcripts and affidavits or declarations.” (People v. Duvall (1995) 9 Cal.4th 464, 474 .) 9 DISCUSSION I Habeas Corpus Law To put the series of reforms enacted by Proposition 66 into context, we briefly summarize the law as it existed prio 2021(People v. Duvall (1995) 9 Cal.4th 464, 474 .) Though we recognize the split in appellate decisions on this issue, we believe the better analysis is set forth in People v. Galvan (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 1134 , review granted October 14, 2020, S264978, People v. Murillo (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 160 , 6 review granted November 18, 2020, S264978, Jones, Nunez, and other cases that disagree with Smith and Torres. | 3 | 2021–2024 |
In Re Hitchings
green
2 sentences2017Also, two people may witness the same event yet see or hear it differently." (CALCRIM No. 226.) "Because appellate courts are ill-suited to conduct evidentiary hearings, it is customary for appellate courts to appoint a referee to take evidence and make recommendations as to the resolution of disputed factual issues." ( People v. Romero (1994) 8 Cal.4th 728 , 740, 35 Cal.Rptr.2d 270 , 883 P.2d 388 .) "The central reason for referring a habeas corpus claim for an evidentiary hearing is to obtain credibility determinations [citation]; consequently, we give special deference to the referee on fac 2017Also, two people may witness the same event yet see or hear it differently." (CALCRIM No. 226.) "Because appellate courts are ill-suited to conduct evidentiary hearings, it is customary for appellate courts to appoint a referee to take evidence and make recommendations as to the resolution of disputed factual issues." ( People v. Romero (1994) 8 Cal.4th 728 , 740, 35 Cal.Rptr.2d 270 , 883 P.2d 388 .) "The central reason for referring a habeas corpus claim for an evidentiary hearing is to obtain credibility determinations [citation]; consequently, we give special deference to the referee on fac | 3 | 2017–2017 |
In Re Sassounian
green
2 sentences2017First, a habeas petitioner seeking relief must show by a preponderance of the evidence "that false evidence was offered against him at trial." ( In re Richards (2012) 55 Cal.4th 948 , 976, 150 Cal.Rptr.3d 84 , 289 P.3d 860 .) Second, courts then evaluate whether that "false evidence was material." ( In re Richards (2016) 63 Cal.4th 291 , 312, 202 Cal.Rptr.3d 678 , 371 P.3d 195 ( Richards ).) That is, courts look at the false evidence and ask whether it was of such significance " 'that with reasonable probability it could have affected the outcome.' " (§ 1473, subd. (b) ; In re Sassounian (1995 2017First, a habeas petitioner seeking relief must show by a preponderance of the evidence "that false evidence was offered against him at trial." ( In re Richards (2012) 55 Cal.4th 948 , 976, 150 Cal.Rptr.3d 84 , 289 P.3d 860 .) Second, courts then evaluate whether that "false evidence was material." ( In re Richards (2016) 63 Cal.4th 291 , 312, 202 Cal.Rptr.3d 678 , 371 P.3d 195 ( Richards ).) That is, courts look at the false evidence and ask whether it was of such significance " 'that with reasonable probability it could have affected the outcome.' " (§ 1473, subd. (b) ; In re Sassounian (1995 | 3 | 2017–2017 |
People v. Romero
green
2 sentences2017Also, two people may witness the same event yet see or hear it differently." (CALCRIM No. 226.) "Because appellate courts are ill-suited to conduct evidentiary hearings, it is customary for appellate courts to appoint a referee to take evidence and make recommendations as to the resolution of disputed factual issues." ( People v. Romero (1994) 8 Cal.4th 728 , 740, 35 Cal.Rptr.2d 270 , 883 P.2d 388 .) "The central reason for referring a habeas corpus claim for an evidentiary hearing is to obtain credibility determinations [citation]; consequently, we give special deference to the referee on fac 2017Also, two people may witness the same event yet see or hear it differently." (CALCRIM No. 226.) "Because appellate courts are ill-suited to conduct evidentiary hearings, it is customary for appellate courts to appoint a referee to take evidence and make recommendations as to the resolution of disputed factual issues." ( People v. Romero (1994) 8 Cal.4th 728 , 740, 35 Cal.Rptr.2d 270 , 883 P.2d 388 .) "The central reason for referring a habeas corpus claim for an evidentiary hearing is to obtain credibility determinations [citation]; consequently, we give special deference to the referee on fac | 3 | 2017–2017 |
Simmons v. United States
green
2 sentences2017First, a habeas petitioner seeking relief must show by a preponderance of the evidence "that false evidence was offered against him at trial." ( In re Richards (2012) 55 Cal.4th 948 , 976, 150 Cal.Rptr.3d 84 , 289 P.3d 860 .) Second, courts then evaluate whether that "false evidence was material." ( In re Richards (2016) 63 Cal.4th 291 , 312, 202 Cal.Rptr.3d 678 , 371 P.3d 195 ( Richards ).) That is, courts look at the false evidence and ask whether it was of such significance " 'that with reasonable probability it could have affected the outcome.' " (§ 1473, subd. (b) ; In re Sassounian (1995 2017First, a habeas petitioner seeking relief must show by a preponderance of the evidence "that false evidence was offered against him at trial." ( In re Richards (2012) 55 Cal.4th 948 , 976, 150 Cal.Rptr.3d 84 , 289 P.3d 860 .) Second, courts then evaluate whether that "false evidence was material." ( In re Richards (2016) 63 Cal.4th 291 , 312, 202 Cal.Rptr.3d 678 , 371 P.3d 195 ( Richards ).) That is, courts look at the false evidence and ask whether it was of such significance " 'that with reasonable probability it could have affected the outcome.' " (§ 1473, subd. (b) ; In re Sassounian (1995 | 3 | 2017–2017 |
In re Richards
green
2 sentences2017First, a habeas petitioner seeking relief must show by a preponderance of the evidence "that false evidence was offered against him at trial." ( In re Richards (2012) 55 Cal.4th 948 , 976, 150 Cal.Rptr.3d 84 , 289 P.3d 860 .) Second, courts then evaluate whether that "false evidence was material." ( In re Richards (2016) 63 Cal.4th 291 , 312, 202 Cal.Rptr.3d 678 , 371 P.3d 195 ( Richards ).) That is, courts look at the false evidence and ask whether it was of such significance " 'that with reasonable probability it could have affected the outcome.' " (§ 1473, subd. (b) ; In re Sassounian (1995 2017First, a habeas petitioner seeking relief must show by a preponderance of the evidence "that false evidence was offered against him at trial." ( In re Richards (2012) 55 Cal.4th 948 , 976, 150 Cal.Rptr.3d 84 , 289 P.3d 860 .) Second, courts then evaluate whether that "false evidence was material." ( In re Richards (2016) 63 Cal.4th 291 , 312, 202 Cal.Rptr.3d 678 , 371 P.3d 195 ( Richards ).) That is, courts look at the false evidence and ask whether it was of such significance " 'that with reasonable probability it could have affected the outcome.' " (§ 1473, subd. (b) ; In re Sassounian (1995 | 3 | 2017–2017 |
People v. Thomas
green
2 sentences2017First, a habeas petitioner seeking relief must show by a preponderance of the evidence "that false evidence was offered against him at trial." ( In re Richards (2012) 55 Cal.4th 948 , 976, 150 Cal.Rptr.3d 84 , 289 P.3d 860 .) Second, courts then evaluate whether that "false evidence was material." ( In re Richards (2016) 63 Cal.4th 291 , 312, 202 Cal.Rptr.3d 678 , 371 P.3d 195 ( Richards ).) That is, courts look at the false evidence and ask whether it was of such significance " 'that with reasonable probability it could have affected the outcome.' " (§ 1473, subd. (b) ; In re Sassounian (1995 2017First, a habeas petitioner seeking relief must show by a preponderance of the evidence "that false evidence was offered against him at trial." ( In re Richards (2012) 55 Cal.4th 948 , 976, 150 Cal.Rptr.3d 84 , 289 P.3d 860 .) Second, courts then evaluate whether that "false evidence was material." ( In re Richards (2016) 63 Cal.4th 291 , 312, 202 Cal.Rptr.3d 678 , 371 P.3d 195 ( Richards ).) That is, courts look at the false evidence and ask whether it was of such significance " 'that with reasonable probability it could have affected the outcome.' " (§ 1473, subd. (b) ; In re Sassounian (1995 | 3 | 2017–2017 |
People v. Ledesma
green
2 sentences2017Also, two people may witness the same event yet see or hear it differently." (CALCRIM No. 226.) "Because appellate courts are ill-suited to conduct evidentiary hearings, it is customary for appellate courts to appoint a referee to take evidence and make recommendations as to the resolution of disputed factual issues." ( People v. Romero (1994) 8 Cal.4th 728 , 740, 35 Cal.Rptr.2d 270 , 883 P.2d 388 .) "The central reason for referring a habeas corpus claim for an evidentiary hearing is to obtain credibility determinations [citation]; consequently, we give special deference to the referee on fac 2017Also, two people may witness the same event yet see or hear it differently." (CALCRIM No. 226.) "Because appellate courts are ill-suited to conduct evidentiary hearings, it is customary for appellate courts to appoint a referee to take evidence and make recommendations as to the resolution of disputed factual issues." ( People v. Romero (1994) 8 Cal.4th 728 , 740, 35 Cal.Rptr.2d 270 , 883 P.2d 388 .) "The central reason for referring a habeas corpus claim for an evidentiary hearing is to obtain credibility determinations [citation]; consequently, we give special deference to the referee on fac | 3 | 2017–2017 |
People v. Butler
green
2 sentences2026However, we will exercise our discretion and not apply the forfeiture rule because it will “have the effect of converting an appellate issue into a habeas corpus claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to preserve the question by timely objection.”5 (People v. Butler (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1119, 1128 .) 5 For this reason, in a separate order, we are summarily denying Hartman’s related petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which alleges ineffective assistance by his trial counsel for failing to object to his upper term sentence at the sentencing hearing (G065044). 24 III. 2015First, the California Supreme Court has explained that when “applying a forfeiture rule . . . would likely have the effect of converting an appellate issue into a habeas corpus claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to preserve the question by timely objection . . . , we would be loath to invoke a rule that would proliferate rather than reduce the nature and scope of legal proceedings. [Citation.] After all, judicial economy is a principal rationale of the forfeiture doctrine. [Citation.]”5 (People v. Butler (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1119, 1128 ; see also People v. Turner (1990) 50 Cal | 2 | 2015–2026 |
In re Tyrone A. Miller On Habeas Corpus
green
2 sentences2021(In re Parrish (2020) 58 Cal.App.5th 539 , 541.) “In a habeas corpus challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support a special circumstance finding, the ‘standard of review . . . is whether, when evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value is viewed “in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the allegation beyond a reasonable doubt.” [Citations.] The standard is the same under the state and federal due process clauses. [Citation.] We presume, in support of the judgment, the existence of every fact 2021(In re Parrish (2020) 58 Cal.App.5th 539 , 541.) “In a habeas corpus challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support a special circumstance finding, the ‘standard of review . . . is whether, when evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value is viewed “in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the allegation beyond a reasonable doubt.” [Citations.] The standard is the same under the state and federal due process clauses. [Citation.] We presume, in support of the judgment, the existence of every fact | 2 | 2021–2021 |
In re Bacigalupo
green
2 sentences2018Bennett's Habeas Corpus Claim We now turn to applying the principles set forth in Banks, Clark, Enmund, and Tison to Bennett's claim on *623 habeas corpus review. 5 When a defendant seeks habeas corpus relief, the underlying judgment is presumed valid. ( In re Bacigalupo (2012) 55 Cal.4th 312 , 332, 145 Cal.Rptr.3d 832 , 283 P.3d 613 ; In re Clark (1993) 5 Cal.4th 750 , 764, 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 509 , 855 P.2d 729 .) In a habeas corpus challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support a special circumstance finding, the "standard of review ... is whether, when evidence that is reasonable, cred 2018Bennett's Habeas Corpus Claim We now turn to applying the principles set forth in Banks, Clark, Enmund, and Tison to Bennett's claim on *623 habeas corpus review. 5 When a defendant seeks habeas corpus relief, the underlying judgment is presumed valid. ( In re Bacigalupo (2012) 55 Cal.4th 312 , 332, 145 Cal.Rptr.3d 832 , 283 P.3d 613 ; In re Clark (1993) 5 Cal.4th 750 , 764, 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 509 , 855 P.2d 729 .) In a habeas corpus challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support a special circumstance finding, the "standard of review ... is whether, when evidence that is reasonable, cred | 2 | 2018–2018 |
In Re Clark
red
2 sentences2018Bennett's Habeas Corpus Claim We now turn to applying the principles set forth in Banks, Clark, Enmund, and Tison to Bennett's claim on *623 habeas corpus review. 5 When a defendant seeks habeas corpus relief, the underlying judgment is presumed valid. ( In re Bacigalupo (2012) 55 Cal.4th 312 , 332, 145 Cal.Rptr.3d 832 , 283 P.3d 613 ; In re Clark (1993) 5 Cal.4th 750 , 764, 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 509 , 855 P.2d 729 .) In a habeas corpus challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support a special circumstance finding, the "standard of review ... is whether, when evidence that is reasonable, cred 2018Bennett's Habeas Corpus Claim We now turn to applying the principles set forth in Banks, Clark, Enmund, and Tison to Bennett's claim on *623 habeas corpus review. 5 When a defendant seeks habeas corpus relief, the underlying judgment is presumed valid. ( In re Bacigalupo (2012) 55 Cal.4th 312 , 332, 145 Cal.Rptr.3d 832 , 283 P.3d 613 ; In re Clark (1993) 5 Cal.4th 750 , 764, 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 509 , 855 P.2d 729 .) In a habeas corpus challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support a special circumstance finding, the "standard of review ... is whether, when evidence that is reasonable, cred | 2 | 2018–2018 |
In Re Dixon
green
2 sentences2004Our Dixon bar ( In re Dixon, supra, 41 Cal.2d at p. 759 , 264 P.2d 513 ) states that certain types of claims may not be raised on habeas corpus if they should have been, but were not, raised on appeal. 2004Our Dixon bar ( In re Dixon, supra, 41 Cal.2d at p. 759 , 264 P.2d 513 ) states that certain types of claims may not be raised on habeas corpus if they should have been, but were not, raised on appeal. | 2 | 1998–2004 |
| In Re OS green | 2 | 2003–2003 |
Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. Ruth M.
green
2 sentences2003S., supra, 102 Cal.App.4th 1402 , 1406, fn. 2, 126 Cal. Rptr.2d 571 ; In re Carrie M., supra, 90 Cal.App.4th 530, 534-536 , 108 Cal.Rptr.2d 856 .) The petition for writ of habeas corpus states a prima facie case, and consequently, we shall issue an order to show cause returnable before the juvenile court and requiring that the habeas corpus claim be adjudicated before the appeals are final. 2003S., supra, 102 Cal.App.4th 1402 , 1406, fn. 2, 126 Cal. Rptr.2d 571 ; In re Carrie M., supra, 90 Cal.App.4th 530, 534-536 , 108 Cal.Rptr.2d 856 .) The petition for writ of habeas corpus states a prima facie case, and consequently, we shall issue an order to show cause returnable before the juvenile court and requiring that the habeas corpus claim be adjudicated before the appeals are final. | 2 | 2003–2003 |
| People v. Rosoto green | 2 | 1998–1998 |
| In Re Avena green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| In Re Seaton green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| People v. Johnson green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| Robinson v. Lewis green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| In re Friend green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| In re Reno green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| People v. Perez green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| People v. Santamaria green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| People v. Elliott green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| People v. Smith green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| People v. Garcia green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Stovall v. Denno green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| United States v. Wade green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| In Re Hop green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| People v. Wilkinson green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| In re Johnson green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| In Re Barbara R. green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Withrow v. Williams green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| Escobedo v. Illinois green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| In Re Harris green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| In Re Waltreus green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.