From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Santos

California Court of Appeals, Fifth District
Jun 6, 2024
No. F087859 (Cal. Ct. App. Jun. 6, 2024)

Opinion

F087859

06-06-2024

In re ROBERT SANTOS, On Habeas Corpus

Stephanie L. Gunther, for Petitioner. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, and Max Feinstat, Deputy Attorney General, for Respondent.


NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for writ of habeas corpus, Kern Super. Ct. No. SC063301A

Stephanie L. Gunther, for Petitioner.

Rob Bonta, Attorney General, and Max Feinstat, Deputy Attorney General, for Respondent.

OPINION

THE COURT [*]

This petition seeks a belated appeal from a December 12, 2023 judgment denying a petition for resentencing following an evidentiary hearing in October 2023 taken under submission. After the hearing, petitioner's trial counsel diligently inquired with the clerk of the superior court on multiple occasions whether the forthcoming judgment had been filed. When she again inquired with the clerk on February 20, 2024, counsel was informed judgment had already been rendered on December 12, 2023. By this date, the 60-day period to timely file a notice of appeal from the judgment had elapsed. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.308(a).) Petitioner's trial counsel declares she was never served notice or a copy of the judgment until she communicated with the clerk on February 20, 2024. When petitioner's trial counsel requested the clerk provide her the proof of service associated with the judgment's entry, the clerk informed her no such proof was on file. Petitioner's trial counsel immediately filed a notice of appeal from the judgment on February 20, 2024, which the superior court deemed untimely.

In response to this court's request to file an informal response, the Attorney General does not oppose petitioner's requested relief. Pursuant to the Attorney General's response, this court may grant relief without further proceedings. (People v. Romero (1994) 8 Cal.4th 728, 740, fn. 7.)

Because the late filing of the appeal here is attributable to the superior court's apparent failure to serve trial counsel notice of the rendered judgment, petitioner demonstrates the February 20, 2024 notice of appeal should be deemed timely filed under the equitable principles of the constructive filing doctrine. (See In re Jordan (1992) 4 Cal.4th 116; People v. Slobodion (1947) 30 Cal.2d 362; People v. Castillo (1969) 71 Cal.2d 692; In re Benoit (1973) 10 Cal.3d 72, 88-89; People v. Griggs (1967) 67 Cal.2d 314, 318.) The Attorney General additionally does not oppose relief. Accordingly, we grant petitioner's request to file a belated notice of appeal. In light of this disposition, we need not address petitioner's remaining arguments.

DISPOSITION

Let a writ of habeas corpus issue directing the Clerk of the Superior Court of Kern County to file in its action No. SC063301A the notice of appeal it received on February 20, 2024, to deem said notice of appeal timely filed, and to proceed with the preparation of the record on appeal in accordance with the applicable rules of the California Rules of Court.

The Clerk/Executive Officer of this court is directed to send a copy of the notice of appeal to the Superior Court of Kern County.

This opinion is final forthwith as to this court.

[*] Before Levy, Acting P. J., Smith, J. and DeSantos, J.


Summaries of

In re Santos

California Court of Appeals, Fifth District
Jun 6, 2024
No. F087859 (Cal. Ct. App. Jun. 6, 2024)
Case details for

In re Santos

Case Details

Full title:In re ROBERT SANTOS, On Habeas Corpus

Court:California Court of Appeals, Fifth District

Date published: Jun 6, 2024

Citations

No. F087859 (Cal. Ct. App. Jun. 6, 2024)