Opinion
S285534
08-21-2024
PAGE (XAVIER JERMAIN) ON H.C.
The petition for writ of habeas corpus has been read and considered. Petitioner contends, among other claims, that he is entitled to relief under the Racial Justice Act of 2020 (Pen. Code, § 745). In this respect, petitioner claims he was sentenced more harshly than defendants of different races, ethnicities, or national origins and argues police did not follow double-blind procedure during the administration of a photographic lineup.
The petition does not satisfy the statutory requirements for the appointment of counsel under the Racial Justice Act. (Pen. Code, § 1473, subd. (e) [providing for the appointment of counsel for an indigent petitioner who alleges facts that would establish a violation of the Racial Justice Act].) The petition fails to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to relief under the Racial Justice Act. (Pen. Code, § 1473, subd. (e).) The petition fails to allege particularized facts that adequately describe any alleged actions and how they reflected racial bias or animus, or to support a claim that defendant was charged, convicted, or sentenced in a more severe manner than similarly situated individuals of other races, ethnicities, or national origins. Nor does petitioner describe or attach supporting documentary evidence concerning racial bias or animus or the use of racially discriminatory language. (Pen. Code, § 745, subd. (a)(1)-(4); cf. In re Swain(1949) 34 Cal.2d 300, 304 [a petition for writ of habeas corpus must allege sufficient facts with particularity]; cf. also People v. Duvall (1995) 9 Cal.4th 464, 474 [a petition for writ of habeas corpus must include copies of reasonably available documentary evidence].)
The petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied.