Court Opinion

ID: 9726898
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 13:11:45.851734+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:31.832274
License: Public Domain

GRODIN, J.
I concur in the opinion of the court insofar as it affirms the conviction on appeal (1 Crim. No. 21170), and I agree that defendant’s petition for writ of habeas corpus (1 Crim. No. 21666) should be denied. I write separately to express somewhat different views as to the latter issue.
The claim of incompetency asserted in the petition—the failure of defendant’s trial counsel to interview or to call a potential character witness—is of necessity based upon facts outside the appellate record and is, therefore, appropriately raised through petition for habéas corpus. (In re Hochberg (1970) 2 Cal.3d 870 [87 Cal.Rptr. 681, 471 P.2d 1]; People v. Pope (1979) 23 Cal.3d 412, 426 [152 Cal.Rptr. 732, 590 P.2d 859].) The question presented is whether, taking the facts alleged *244as true, the defendant has established a prima facie case for relief. (In re Lawler (1979) 23 Cal.3d 190, 194 [150 Cal.Rptr. 833, 588 P.2d 1257].) If so, then an order to show cause should issue, and an evidentiary hearing held if necessary. (Ibid.) Such a procedure is expressly contemplated by People v. Pope, supra, and the possibility that trial and appellate attorneys acted in “concert,” whatever the implications of that term, is no bar to relief.
I agree that in this case the petition, read in conjunction with the appellate record, does not establish a prima facie case of incompetency of counsel requiring reversal. I do not base this conclusion upon characterization of the declaration by defendant’s appellate counsel as “hearsay,” since it is not offered to prove the truth of the matter stated by the witness Garsa, but rather to establish what Garsa would have testified if he had been called as a witness. Rather, I base this conclusion upon the lack of specificity in the petition (we are not told, for example, when defendant advised his trial counsel of Garsa’s existence or potential testimony), in the face of an appellate record which suggests both the plausibility of a tactical explanation for not calling Garsa as a witness and the extreme improbability that calling him as a witness would have made a difference in the result.