This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Civil Rights
Prisoners' Rights
Writ of Habeas Corpus

Saul Gutierrez v. Martin Biter, Warden

Published: Oct. 15, 2016 | Result Date: Sep. 26, 2016 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 2:14-cv-06402-DMG-DFM Bench Decision –  Dismissal

Court

USDC Central


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Lynne Marie Patterson


Defendant

Jason Tran

Kamala D. Harris

Lance E. Winters
(Office of the Attorney General)

Jonathan M. Krauss
(Office of the Attorney General)

Gerald A. Engler
(Office of the Attorney General)


Facts

Saul Gutierrez filed a petition for habeas relief against Warden Marten Biter.

A jury convicted Gutierrez, along with his co-defendants, of two counts of attempted, willful, deliberate, and premeditated murder and found true gang and great bodily injury enhancements. Gutierrez received a 30-years-to-life sentence plus a consecutive three-year term for the great bodily injury enhancement.

Contentions

PETITIONER'S CONTENTIONS:
Petitioner alleged, among other things, that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction for attempted deliberated and premeditated murder. Petitioner also alleged that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting certain inflammatory photographic evidence and that the eyewitness was unreliable and insufficient. Petitioner further contended that there was insufficient evidence to support the jury's finding that the crime was gang-related, and the cumulative errors warranted a reversal.

RESPONDENT'S CONTENTIONS:
Respondent denied petitioner's allegations and requested the dismissal of the petition with prejudice. Among other things, respondent claimed that relitigation of petitioner's claims was barred because they had been previously rejected on the merits on direct appeal and was subsequently denied review by the state Supreme Court.

Result

The district court ultimately dismissed the action with prejudice.


#125102

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390