Opinion ID: 3032906
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: false imprisonment and IAC for failing to call

Text: witnesses in this regard; (2) physically coerced confession, lack of Miranda warnings, IAC for failing to challenge these violations; 8994 GASTON v. PALMER (3) IAC for failing to move to suppress a gun; (4) IAC for failure to challenge ballistic test; (5) illegal search of Gaston’s girlfriend’s residence. This second application was denied on July 17, 1997. Gaston’s third application was filed in the California Supreme Court on August 11, 1997. It sought relief, based entirely on California law, from the procedural default of failing to file an appellate brief in Gaston’s direct appeal from his conviction. This application did not raise any of the claims raised in Gaston’s earlier or later applications. It was denied on April 15, 1998. Gaston’s fourth, fifth, and sixth applications were filed in California Superior Court on January 22, 1999 (denied on that date), the California Court of Appeal on February 8, 1999 (denied on April 27, 1999), and the California Supreme Court on February 28, 2000 (denied on June 2, 2000). In each of these applications, Gaston continued to seek relief on grounds raised in his first and second applications. He also asserted additional grounds. Each application asserted the following eleven grounds for relief: (1) IAC for failing to call witnesses regarding false imprisonment;