| |
Richardson v. Superior Court (People) (2008) , Cal.4th
[No. S127275. May. 22, 2008.]
CHARLES KEITH RICHARDSON, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF TULARE COUNTY, Respondent; THE PEOPLE, Real Party in Interest.
(Superior Court of Tulare County, No. CRT 27383, William Silveira, Jr., Judge.)
(Opinion by Moreno, J., with Kennard, J., Baxter, J., Werdegar, J., and Corrigan, J., concurring. Dissenting opinion by Chin, J., with George, C.J., concurring.)
OPINION
MORENO, J.-
This writ proceeding is related to petitioner Charles Keith Richardson's automatic appeal from a judgment of death. (People v. Richardson (May 22, 2008, S029588) __ Cal.4th __.) Here, we review the denial of petitioner's postconviction motion under Penal Code section 1405 fn. 1 for DNA testing of certain hair samples that were admitted at his capital trial. fn. 2 Our review of the trial court's ruling turns upon the applicable standard of review and the interpretation of two key statutory phrases. We conclude that the applicable standard of review for rulings under section 1405 is abuse of discretion. Having so concluded, we further {Slip Opn. Page 2} conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied petitioner's motion on the ground that he failed to demonstrate that "the requested DNA testing results would raise a reasonable probability that, in light of all the evidence, [his] verdict or sentence would have been more favorable if the results of DNA testing had been available at the time of conviction." (§ 1405, subd. (f)(5).)
|
|
 |
Los Angeles DUI Attorney & Violent Crime Lawyer
Los Angeles Employment Attorney
Site Map
The information on this California Criminal Defense Attorneys / Law Firm website is for general information purposes only. Nothing on this or associated pages, documents, comments, answers, emails, or other communications should be taken as legal advice for any individual case or situation. This information on this website is not intended to create, and receipt or viewing of this information does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship.
All case summaries are from public records and not associated with Dr. DUI or California Legal Team.
|
|
