Court Opinion

ID: 9749983
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 14:09:53.593929+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:26:00.925564
License: Public Domain

MALLANO, J., Concurring.
I agree the petition should be denied.
A writ of habeas corpus does not lie because Mendez is no longer in prison or subject to parole supervision. (In re Azurin (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 20 [104 Cal.Rptr.2d 284].) And petitioner conceded at oral argument that a writ of coram nobis is not available to him on the facts presented.
Rather, petitioner asks us to fashion an unprecedented remedy for him “pursuant to the broad equitable powers of the court.” In his petition, he states: “Petitioner was arrested on May 13, 1993, by Los Angeles Police Officer David Mack. In brief, Mack, who worked with the notorious Rafael Perez, subsequently committed a bank robbery, attempted to contract for a murder, consorted with narcotics dealers, and asserted that he ‘renounced’ his career as a police officer and that he was a member of the Bloods street gang. HD Mack was arrested December 16, 1997. Mack entered a guilty plea to bank robbery in federal court, and on September 13, 1999, was sentenced to serve a term of 14 years, 3 months.”
Because petitioner has failed to demonstrate how his guilty plea—entered over four years before Mack’s criminality came to light—was tainted, I *804agree that we should not forge a novel remedy for petitioner. But I do not foreclose the possibility that we might employ our broad equitable powers to provide relief to some future petitioner.
A petition for a rehearing was denied March 26, 2001, and on April 4, 2001, the opinion was modified to read as printed above. Petitioner’s petition for review by the Supreme Court was denied May 23, 2001.