Court Opinion

ID: 9453493
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 18:15:25.282705+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:33:41.032205
License: Public Domain

PER CURIAM:
The order of the district court is reversed.
We do not believe appellant’s contention about a nunc pro tunc order of the state trial judge rises to federal constitutional dimensions. Further, we are satisfied with California’s handling of it. People v. Fisherman, 237 Cal.App.2d 356, 47 Cal.Rptr. 33, 35.
Somewhere, we believe that Fisherman is entitled to a hearing on his allegations about his guilty plea and his allegations about denial of effective representation of counsel at his probation revocation-resentencing hearing.
We suggest that the district court might well order that it will delay any hearing for 45 or 60 days to see if the California courts will not provide Fisherman a hearing on the points that as pleaded seem to merit inquiry. And, the district court may direct Fisherman to seek the state relief. After such a period, the district court may then decide whether it needs a hearing to comply with this court’s views.
Nothing said hereinabove should be understood to prevent the district court at some time requiring the appellant to make his allegations less conclusory.