Opinion
S285673
02-02-2024
JONES (BRANDON) v. S.C. (PEOPLE)
The petition for writ of mandate is construed as a petition for writ of habeas corpus.
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) and requests the appointment of counsel. In this respect, petitioner claims the superior court erred by failing to consider his Racial Justice Act claims with his petition for recall and resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1172.6 and that the superior court's denial of the Racial Justice Act claim was motivated by bias and discrimination.
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 also 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. 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 request for counsel is denied. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied.