IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA
CHARLES KEITH RICHARDSON,
THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
Super. Ct. No. CRT27383
Real Party in Interest.
MODIFICATION OF OPINION
The opinion herein, filed on May 22, 2008, appearing at 43 Cal.4th 1040, is
modified as follows:
Footnote 7 on page 1053 is modified to read:
Contrary to petitioner’s suggestion, there is no requirement in section 1405
that the trial court make on-the-record findings to support its ruling. To the extent
petitioner claims that the DNA testing should have been ordered because the
results might be useful to him on habeas corpus or for purposes of executive
clemency, we reject the claim. Section 1405 does not require the trial court to
order DNA testing because it might be helpful in these contexts but only where the
conditions of subdivision (f) are fulfilled.
This modification does not affect the judgment.
Original proceeding. In this case, which is related to the automatic appeal in People v. Richardson, S029588, the Court issued an alternative writ limited to the following claim: Should petitioner's motion for DNA testing pursuant to Penal Code section 1405 be granted?
|Date:||Citation:||Docket Number:||Category:||Status:||Cross Referenced Cases:|
|Wed, 07/16/2008||44 Cal.4th 385b original opinion43 Cal.4th 1040 original opinion||S127275M||Writ (AA - original non-Habeas)||complete|| |
PEOPLE v. RICHARDSON (CHARLES) (S029588)
|1||Richardson, Charles Keith (Petitioner)|
San Quentin State Prison
Represented by Richard Jay Moller
Attorney at Law
P.O. Box 1669
|2||Superior Court Of Tulare County (Respondent)|
attn: Criminal Appeals
221 S. Mooney Blvd., Rm. 303
Visalia, CA 93291
|3||The People (Real Party in Interest)|
Represented by Attorney General - Fresno Office
Kathleen A. McKenna, Deputy Attorney General
2550 Mariposa Mall, Room 5090
|Mar 16 2005||Case Consolidated (see lead case)|
|Aug 23 2004||Petition for writ of mandate/prohibition filed (AA)|
by attorney Richard Jay Moller. ( 63 pp. - excluding attached appendix)
|Aug 23 2004||Letter sent to:|
respondent requesting informal response; due 9/22/2004. Petitioner will then have 15 days in which to serve and file a reply to the informal response.
|Aug 25 2004||Filed:|
Amended proof of service of petition for writ of mandate/prohibition.
|Sep 20 2004||Informal response filed (AA)|
by Real Party in Interest to petition for writ of mandate/prohibition. (23 pp.)
|Oct 7 2004||Reply to informal response filed (AA)|
by attorney Richard Jay Moller. (perm. - 16 pp.)
|Mar 16 2005||Order to show cause issued|
Respondent is directed to vacate its order denying petitioner's motion for DNA testing pursuant to Penal Code section 1405 and to issue a new order granting the motion or, in the alternative, to show cause in this court, when the matter is placed on calendar, why the relief sought in the petition should not be granted. The return is to be filed on or before April 15, 2005. This cause is consolidated with the appeal in People v. Charles Keith Richardson, S029588, for consideration and decision. Brown, J., was absent and did not participate. (votes: George, C.J., Kennard, Baxter, Werdegar, Chin and Moreno, JJ.)
|Mar 16 2005||Case consolidated - all subsequent events to be docketed in:|
Automatic Appeal: PEOPLE V. CHARLES KEITH RICHARDSON - S029588
|Nov 14 2007||Previously consolidated cases ordered severed|
Review in Richardson v. Superior Court (People), S127275, is severed from review in People v. Charles Keith Richardson, S029588. The Clerk of the Court is directed to reopen case number S127275 for determination of the cause by this court.
|Dec 27 2007||Oral argument letter sent|
advising counsel that the court could schedule this case for argument as early as the February 2008 calendar, to be held the week of February 4, 2008, in Sacramento.
|Feb 6 2008||Case ordered on calendar|
to be argued Thursday, March 6, 2008, at 1:30 p.m., in San Francisco
|Feb 27 2008||Received:|
appearance sheet from R. Jay Moller, indicating 30 minutes for oral argument for petitioner.
|Mar 6 2008||Cause argued and submitted|
|May 21 2008||Notice of forthcoming opinion posted|
|May 22 2008||Opinion filed: OSC discharged; mandate denied|
The order to show cause is discharged and the petition is denied. opinion by Moreno, J. -----joined by Kennard, Baxter, Werdegar and Corrigan, JJ. Dissent by Chin, J. -----joined by George, C.J.
|Jun 13 2008||Rehearing petition filed|
by appellant (1,726 words) (note: envelope indicates petition was mailed via priority mail June 6, 2008 and remailed on June 11, 2008. Petition was received at the court this date.)
|Jun 24 2008||Letter sent to:|
counsel re finality.
|Jun 25 2008||Letter sent to:|
counsel advising that June 24, 2008 letter was sent in error. Petition for rehearing, not previously docketed, is pending. The docket has been corrected this date to reflect that filing.
|Jun 25 2008||Time extended to consider modification or rehearing|
The time for granting or denying rehearing in the above-entitled case is hereby extended to and including August 20, 2008, or the date upon which rehearing is either granted or denied, whichever occurs first. This order is entered nunc pro tunc as of June 20, 2008, due to clerical error.
|Jul 16 2008||Rehearing denied|
The opinion is modified on the court's own motion. The petition for rehearing is denied. Chin, J., is of the opinion the petition should be granted.
|Jul 16 2008||Opinion modified - no change in judgment|
|Jul 16 2008||Letter sent to counsel: opinion now final|