Introduction to Direct Appeals

Any person convicted of a crime in California has the right to a direct appeal from the final judgment, typically the commitment to prison or other sentencing orders. Direct appeals are also available to those who have been civilly committed as Mentally Disordered Offenders (MDOs) or Sexually Violent Predators (SVPs). The appeals process is an essential legal mechanism, allowing higher courts to review potential legal errors made during the trial or sentencing that could have affected the outcome.

Filing a Notice of Appeal

The first step in the appeals process is filing a notice of appeal. This notice must be filed within 60 days after the final judgment or order being appealed. The notice can be signed by the defendant or their attorney and must identify the case name, number, and the judgment being appealed. For those challenging the validity of a guilty or no contest plea, a request for a certificate of probable cause must also be filed.

Constructive Filing of a Late Notice of Appeal

In certain circumstances, individuals may be allowed to file a late notice of appeal under the principle of “constructive filing.” This can apply if, for example, the notice was timely delivered to prison staff for mailing but delayed, or if the defendant relied on assurances from their attorney that were not fulfilled. Constructive filing requires a motion with the court of appeal or a petition for writ of habeas corpus.

Issues Raised on Appeal After a Trial

Various legal issues can be raised on appeal, including violations of constitutional rights or state laws. However, the appeal must be based on evidence and proceedings recorded in the superior court. If the issue was not raised during the trial, the court of appeal may consider it forfeited unless it’s of constitutional importance or an objection in the superior court would have been futile.

Issues Raised on Appeal After a Guilty or No Contest Plea

Appeals following a guilty or no contest plea are more limited. Issues that can be raised include challenges to the denial of a motion to suppress illegally obtained evidence or claims that the court or prosecutor violated the plea bargain. Some appeals require a certificate of probable cause, such as those challenging the plea’s validity.

Appellate Counsel and Court Transcripts

Indigent appellants are entitled to appointed counsel and court transcripts provided at state expense. Appellate attorneys review trial records to identify potential appealable issues and prepare necessary briefs.

Record Correction and Augmentation

Appellate attorneys ensure the record is complete and may file motions to augment the record if additional documents or transcripts are needed. This ensures that all relevant materials are available for the court of appeal’s review.

Appellate Briefing

The appeals process involves multiple rounds of briefing. The appellant files an opening brief outlining the legal errors and desired remedies. The respondent, represented by the state, files a counter-brief, followed by the appellant’s reply brief. Supplemental briefs may be filed if new issues arise.

Oral Argument and Decision

The court of appeal may schedule oral arguments where attorneys can address the judges’ questions. Following the arguments, the court issues its decision, which could affirm, reverse, or modify the original judgment. The court might also remand the case for further proceedings.

Petition for Rehearing and Review

If dissatisfied with the court of appeal’s decision, parties can file a petition for rehearing or seek review by the California Supreme Court. The Supreme Court reviews cases of significant legal importance but grants review in only a small fraction of cases.

How a California Criminal Defense and Appeals Lawyer Can Help

Navigating the complexities of the appeals process requires the expertise of a California Criminal Defense and Appeals Lawyer. An experienced attorney can:

• Evaluate Eligibility: Assessing whether there are valid grounds for an appeal.
• Preparing and Filing Appeals: Ensuring all procedural requirements are met and presenting compelling arguments.
• Representation in Court: Advocating on behalf of the appellant during oral arguments and hearings.
• Post-Appeal Actions: Filing petitions for rehearing or seeking review by higher courts if necessary.

If you believe you or a loved one may have grounds for an appeal, contact our law firm today. You can consult with our attorney team by calling (888) 808-2179. Our California Criminal Defense and Appeals Lawyers are dedicated to providing the guidance and representation needed to navigate this complex process. Call us or submit a contact form to schedule a consultation and learn how we can help you achieve a fair and just outcome.

Specifically, the high court was concerned about Peterson’s claim that one of the jurors on his case failed to disclose that she had once feared for her unborn child when her boyfriend’s ex-girlfriend harassed her. Evidently, the juror had to take out a restraining order against the woman, who was charged based on the juror’s allegations and ultimately spent a week in jail.

The juror’s failure to disclose this pertinent information, Peterson argued, consisted of “prejudicial misconduct.” In Peterson’s court filings, he notes that the juror seemed as though she “wanted” to be on the jury so that she could convict Peterson for his alleged crimes. Peterson notes that the juror’s employer did not offer to pay her for the time she would be on the jury, and that she agreed to sit on the jury even though it would take several months.

Under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, criminal defendants are entitled to an “impartial” jury. Over the years, courts have had many occasions to interpret what impartiality is in the context of a criminal jury. One of the criteria courts use when assessing whether a juror is qualified is whether they can be fair given their own belief and experiences. For example, this is why judges ask jurors if they have been the victim of a crime in the past.

In this case, the juror hid the fact that she was the victim of a crime. This is information that the defense would have wanted to know, given that the nature of the charges Peterson faced was similar to the fears that motivated the juror to seek a restraining order. Peterson argued that the fact that the juror hid her past victimization was a conscious decision to, essentially, poison the jury. Indeed, Peterson also notes that the juror was one of just two hold-out jurors who were strongly in favor of finding him guilty of first-degree murder for the killing of his unborn child. Peterson was ultimately found guilty of second-degree murder on that charge.

The high court’s ruling is not necessarily an indication that Peterson’s request for a new trial will be granted, only that the lower court must hear the merits of his argument.

As is standard in capital jury trials, the trial was bifurcated into two phases. First, in the guilt phase, the jury was tasked with determining whether the prosecution proved that Peterson killed his wife beyond a reasonable doubt. After the jury found Peterson guilty, the trial moved on to the penalty phase.

At the penalty phase of a capital trial, the jury must decide if a defendant should be sentenced to death or if a sentence of life without the possibility of parole would be more appropriate. In the Peterson case, the jury recommended a death sentence, which was imposed by the trial judge on March 6, 2005.

In 2012, as a part of the automatic appeal process in California death penalty cases, Peterson’s attorney filed a 423-page appeal, raising numerous issues. Peterson’s lawyer also filed several habeas corpus petitions. Among the issues raised was that the jury-selection process failed to guarantee Peterson a fair jury.

In capital cases, prospective jurors are asked whether they could, under certain circumstances, follow the law and return a verdict of death. Jurors who are categorically opposed to the death penalty must be excused from the panel if they state that they would not be able to even consider a sentence of death. At the same time, jurors who say that they would automatically impose a death sentence after a guilty verdict must also be excused.

In Peterson’s case, the California Supreme Court reversed his conviction because the trial judge failed to ask whether those jurors who were opposed to the death penalty could put those feelings aside. In the court’s opinion, the authoring Justice explained, “Jurors may not be excused merely for opposition to the death penalty, but only for views rendering them unable to fairly consider imposing that penalty in accordance with their oath. This is the meaning of the guarantee of an impartial jury.”

As a result of the court’s ruling, Peterson’s conviction for first-degree murder will stand; however, his sentence  of death was vacated. It remains up to the prosecutors to determine if a new death sentence will be sought.