Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_00-cv-00757/USCOURTS-caed-2_00-cv-00757-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

QUIN DENVIR, Bar #49374

Federal Defender

ALLISON CLAIRE, Bar #170138

Assistant Federal Defender

801 I Street, 3rd Floor

Sacramento, California 95814

Telephone: (916) 498-5700

Attorney for Petitioner

JAY STEWART MILLER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAY STEWART MILLER,

Petitioner,

 v.

CAL TERHUNE, et al.,

Respondents.

_______________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

NO. CIV S-00-0757 LKK GGH P

STIPULATION AND ORDER SETTING

DEADLINE FOR PETITIONER'S CLOSING

POST-HEARING BRIEF

Petitioner, JAY STEWART MILLER, and respondents, CAL TERHUNE,

et al., by and through their respective counsel, hereby agree and

stipulate as follows:

1. Pursuant to prior stipulation and order, final briefing

in this matter was stayed pending the California Supreme Court’s

anticipated decisions in People v. Wright, No. S119067, and People v.

Gregory, No. S110450. Wright was decided on May 26, 2005. The court

did not reach the merits of the question whether imperfect self-defense

may be based on an actual, though unreasonable, belief in the need to

defend which is based on delusions resulting from mental illness of

intoxication. People v. Wright, 35 Cal.4th 964 (2005). 

Case 2:00-cv-00757-LKK -GGH Document 83 Filed 07/29/05 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

2. Counsel for respondent has recently learned that he was

mistaken in his good-faith belief, and prior representation to the

court and to opposing counsel, that the Gregory case had already been

argued to the California Supreme Court. The case has been fully

briefed, but has not yet been scheduled for argument. Counsel for

respondent contacted counsel for petitioner as soon as he became aware

of the actual status of Gregory.

3. Counsel for petitioner subsequently contacted the

attorney for the petitioner in Gregory, who has had no indication from

the California Supreme Court whether or when argument will be

scheduled.

4. Accordingly, the parties agree that final briefing and

submission of this case should not be further delayed. The parties

agree that petitioner’s closing post-hearing brief may be filed within

thirty (30) days. The case will then be submitted for decision. The

parties do not believe that preparation of Findings and Recommendations

should await a decision in Gregory, supra.

5. Following the California Supreme Court’s decision in

Gregory, either party may file a Notice Of Supplemental Authority

together with a letter brief discussing the significance of the

decision for this case. 

6. Because the parties do not know when Gregory will be

decided, if the court will reach the merits of the imperfect selfdefense question, or if the decision will shed any light on the state

of California law at the time of Mr. Miller’s trial, the parties

request that submission of this matter not be deferred.

///

Case 2:00-cv-00757-LKK -GGH Document 83 Filed 07/29/05 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

5. Counsel for respondent has authorized counsel for petitioner

to sign this stipulation on his behalf.

Dated: July 20, 2005

Respectfully submitted,

QUIN DENVIR

Federal Defender

/s/ Allison Claire

ALLISON CLAIRE

Assistant Federal Defender

Attorney for Petitioner

JAY STEWART MILLER

Dated: July 20, 2005 BILL LOCKYER

Attorney General of the State of 

California

/s/ Clifford E. Zall

CLIFFORD E. ZALL 

Deputy Attorney General

Attorney for Respondents

O R D E R

Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties and for good cause

shown, petitioner's closing post-hearing brief shall be filed within

thirty days of the effective date of this order. The case will then be

submitted for preparation of Findings and Recommendations.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: 7/29/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

___________________________

HON. GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

United States Magistrate Judge

mill757.stip

Case 2:00-cv-00757-LKK -GGH Document 83 Filed 07/29/05 Page 3 of 3