Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01793/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01793-7/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)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

REYES LEGRANDE, JR,

Petitioner,

 v.

JAMES A. YATES, Warden of Pleasant Valley

State Prison,

Respondent. /

No. C 07-01793 WHA

ORDER REQUESTING

ADDITIONAL BRIEFING

This is a habeas action filed by a California state prisoner pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254,

challenging his 2004 conviction on twelve counts in Santa Clara County Superior Court. 

Counts 4 through 12 against him arose from a vehicle stop on January 25, 2003. Petitioner was

a passenger in a Mercury Cougar driven by his co-defendant in which the police discovered a

pistol and methamphetamine during the vehicle stop. Among other claims, petitioner argues

that his trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective because he failed to introduce evidence at

trial that neither petitioner nor his co-defendant was the registered owner of the Mercury

Cougar.

During a pretrial motion to suppress the fruits of the vehicle search, petitioner testified

that the owner of the Mercury was “a friend and business partner or something like that” named

Steven Garcia (Exh. C-1 at 4). Petitioner argues that trial counsel should have introduced

evidence that Garcia owned the car and that petitioner’s co-defendant was merely test-driving it. 

The record here does not reveal why trial counsel did not present evidence regarding the

Case 3:07-cv-01793-WHA Document 47 Filed 04/28/10 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

identity of the registered owner of the Mercury or that petitioner and his co-defendant were

merely test-driving the car. 

By NOON ON MONDAY, MAY 3, 2010, the parties are requested to submit supplemental

briefing of no more than 5 pages regarding whether an evidentiary hearing should be held to

address the issue of whether trial counsel’s failure to present evidence about the identity of the

Mercury’s true owner fell below an “objective standard of reasonableness” under professional

norms. Replies of no more than 3 pages shall be filed no later than NOON ON WEDNESDAY,

MAY 5, 2010.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 28, 2010. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-01793-WHA Document 47 Filed 04/28/10 Page 2 of 2