WPC"$ ;ʿfy ½#%ے֍=Gqڐd<_g "a$ ,cO52)ݝĔ.cDGڵnL&.ɓ9@ucHUrw!A=/A=FL! H +TC"HbhΜ6ȓ)h\8W:̓CÒCP`av5z 8Ӣ W5kHQʢVRc1HWu}VGlcXr֪uqwiؚ^wn*p$^ j#t{xV@*}:e'gN֣rQEco1gBZGN&{PK /ƙe~^ d_EG>8g/W#!UN %1 0:7^ qw@}4 mN( 0N# Rq * 1 72t 1u 72 0 cM 0w 1' 72 0 1j 72 0# 0 1w 72 10 72 1 72p 1 72) 1[ 72 1 72 1 72T 1 72  1? 72 1 72 1 728 1j 72 1# 72 1 72c 1 72 1N 72 1 72 1 72G 1y 72.2 0C` 0vUNgU N"n"n"n"n"n"n"n"n"n"n"n" B$HP LaserJet 4,,,,0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX($USUS.,0 RER E!["E#V$%U&Y0:i+003|x& Uhttp://www.ilrc.org(O$http://www.criminalandimmigrationlaw.comhttp://www.usdoj.gov05HCEKQW]cioAutoList1I.A.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)(;3$2#  0  .3  0  (O;$0  2#  a  .3  0` (#(#0CEKQW]cioAutoList2A.A.1.A.A.A.A.A.A.(b$0  0` (#(#2#   .3  0 ` (#` (#0aCEKQW]cioAutoList31.1.1.a.a.1.1.1.1.(xir$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#2#(  0  )3  0 (# (#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#2#(  a  )3  0h(#(#0CEKQW]cioAutoList4A.A.1.A.A.A.A.A.A.0ƼCEKQW]cioAutoList5A.A.1.1.A.A.A.A.A. hCEKQW]cioAutoList61.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.!1.0CEKQW]cioAutoList7A.A.1.A.A.A.A.A.#A.(hCEKQW]cioAutoList81.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.%1.( CEKQW]cioAutoList9A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.'A.(*EGMSY_ekqAutoList10A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.)A.0EGMSY_ekqAutoList11I.A.I.I.I.I.I.I.+I.(JEGMSY_ekqAutoList12A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.-A.(ZEGMSY_ekqAutoList13A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A./A.(jEGMSY_ekqAutoList14A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.1A.(zEGMSY_ekqAutoList15A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.3A.(EGMSY_ekqAutoList16A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.5A.0ŢEGMSY_ekqAutoList17I.I.1.I.I.I.I.I.7I.0EGMSY_ekqAutoList18A.A.1.1)A.A.A.A.9A.(eEGMSY_ekqAutoList191.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.;1.(EGMSY_ekqAutoList201.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.=1.(%EGMSY_ekqAutoList211.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.?1.(5EGMSY_ekqAutoList22I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.AI. $      ($    (-!2Vf$ !  Ӏ  0  (hH  Z6Times New Roman Regular  GVf$Ӏ  1    _  { XXJ  {However,whenarelatedappealispending,thecoverofthehabeaspetitionshouldrevealthatfact.In  addition,intheinterestsofjudicialeconomy,thepleadingcancontainarequestthatthecourttakejudicialnoticeoftherecordonappeal.Intheabsenceofsucharequest,theburdenfallsonthepetitionertootherwisepresentanadequaterecordinsupportofthepetition.(SeeSherwoodv.SuperiorCourt(1979)24Cal.3d183,186187;Inre (x Saunders(1970)2Cal.3d1033,10471048.)AlthoughCaliforniaRulesofCourt,rule22(a)(1)requiresaseparate > motioninsupportofarequestforjudicialnotice,theClerkoftheSixthDistricthasinformallyindicatedthatthecourtwillnotenforcerule22(a)(1)inhabeasproceedings..4`  GVf$Ӏ  2    _Ԁ{ XXWhenadefendantisonprobationorparole,habeasreliefliessinceheorsheisdeemedtobeinthe  constructivecustodyofthestate.(Inre_Azurin_(2001)87Cal.App.4th20,23.)J  { d !USUS.,  _8     XX8t)Xdd8EAVACATINGCONVICTIONSRESULTINGFROMGUILTYPLEAS  ЀBASEDONINEFFECTIVEASSISTANCEOFCOUNSELRELATED̀TOIMMIGRATIONCONSEQUENCES   Z%%&ByMichael_Mehr_ԀandVicki_Firstman&_b (5H03b I.0  AppellateAttorneyWillEncounterThisIssueUsuallyInTwoContexts:  (#(# Ѐ0   (#(#   A.0 ` AppointedonDirectAppealandInvestigationShowsThatDefendant ` (#` (# Ѐ0  0` (#(#FacesImmigrationConsequencesorisinRemovalProceeding ` (#` (#    ` 1.8 TovacateguiltypleaforIACarelatedhabeas   corpuspetitionisnecessarybecausefactsrelatedtoIACarenotintherecord       ` 8 Note:A convictionisnotfinalandcannotbeusedforimmigrationpurposesiftheconvictionisondirectappeal.Amotiontoterminatecanbe  filedinimmigrationcourtandthecourtmust  terminateproceedings.       ` 8 But,ifconvictionisnotondirectappealandthereisotherpostconvictionreliefpending,theimmigrationcourtcanproceedwithremovalproceedings.    Ѐ  B.8 ` Appointedonappealfromdenialofmotiontovacatein  SuperiorCourt ` x` x Ѐ  8 ` 1.8 ` x` xEveninthiscasearelatedhabeascorpuspetition ! mightneedtobefiledifamotiontodismissappealisfiled.(SeeVIbelow.)       `   $   II.0  ImmigrationConsequencesofCriminalConvictions  %!!(#(#     &"" b (00b 3   ݀0  3J 2  A  .3  0` (#(#  AggravatedFelonies3J ݌'##` (#` (# Ќ  ݀0  ($$(#(#    ` 1.0 ConsequencesPermanentBanishment)%% (# (#    ` 2.0 Crimes+'' (# (# Ї   ` 0 a.0 (# (#CertainOffensesRegardlessofSentence(#(#    ` 8 b.8  OtherOffensesonlyifsentenceof  oneyearormore     ` 8 c.8  Otheroffensesbasedonamountof   lossorpotentialsentence    B.0 ` _Deportable_ԀOffenses ` (#` (#   C.0 ` InadmissibleOffenses ` (#` (# 8  񀀀D.8`   8`   ImmigrationRelief! CancellationofRemovalandotherrelief. ` x` x     0 ` Resources:4  P  O  5  www.ilrc.org6  O  7 MԀchartandnotesandjuvenile_benchbook_Ԁ` (#` (#    ` 4 `  O  5  www.criminalandimmigrationlaw.com6; OO  7 }     ` 4 `  O  5  www.usdoj.gov/eoir6. OB  7 Zp     ` CaliforniaCriminalLawandImmigration(_ILRC_)   ` Ch.48inCaliforniaCriminalLawandProcedure(_CEB_)  0 ` 0 ` (#` (# (# (#    ` Note:Immigrationlawisrapidlychangingwithavastnumber   ` OfBIAandNinthCir.decisions. III.0  IssuesinVacatingGuiltyPleas(#(#      Performanceprong󀄀 reasonableunderprevailingprofessionalnorms_Strickland_v.    Washington(1984)466U.S.668,688  Ѐ0  (#(#   A.8 ` Doesanattorneyhavedutytoinquireastodefendants   immigrationstatus? ` x` x   8 ` 1.8 ` x` xNoCaliforniacaseonsubjectbutnocaseturns # ontherequirement      0 ` 0 ` (#` (#ofknowledgeofdefendantsalienstatus.%!! (# (#   8 ` 2.؀8 ` x` xABAStandardsrequireinquiringastoalien '## status.AmericanBar_Assn_,ABASTANDARDSFORCRIMINALJUSTICE,PLEASOFGUILTY(3dEdition,1999),Standard143.2(f)states: Totheextentpossible,defensecounsel +'' shoulddetermineandadvisethedefendant,sufficientlyinadvanceoftheentryofanyplea,astothepossiblecollateralconsequencesthatmightensuefromentryofthecontemplatedplea.    b (a00b  8 ` 3.8 ` x` xImpliedbyPeoplev._Soriano_(1987)194   Cal.App.3d1470,1481whichrequires [_I]nformed_Ԁdecisions...reachedaftermeaningfulconsultationconcerningimmigrationconsequences.      8 ` 4.8 ` x` xAGmayarguethatthereisnodutyunless   attorneyalertedthatdefendantmightbe_noncitizen_ԀfollowingColoradocaseofPeoplev.   _Pozo_,746P2d523(Colo.1987)      ` 8 a.0  Policereport/BookingReport/Probation  Reportwillusuallyshowplaceofbirthandatleastthispartshouldbeincludedasanexhibit         ` 8 b.0  Foreignname,appearance,andaccent  shouldalsobesetforthindeclarationorpicturestoshowthatattorneyshouldhaveinvestigatedfurther       `   b (00b  B.8 ` Doesanattorneyhaveadutytoadviseaboutimmigration  consequences? ` x` x     0 ` 1.0 ` (#` (#Peoplev._Soriano_,supra,!Yes! (# (#   8 ` 2.8 ` x` xPeoplev.Bautista(2004)115Cal.App.4th229 # follows_Soriano_$      8 ` 3.8 ` x` xInre_Resendiz_(2001)25Cal.4th230,250 &""  [_Q]uestion_Ԁnotsquarelypresented.    Ѐ0  8` (#(#8 ` ` 0 x x Note:0xx_Resendiz_didnot_overule_Ԁ_Soriano_.Anyimplied )%% criticismisdicta._Resendiz_Ԁnotesthatan_IAC_ *&& claimisanintenselyfactboundinquiryand +'' dependsonthefactsoftheparticularcase._Resendiz_ԀcitesUnitedStatesv.MoraGomez  (1995)875F.Supp.1208,1212whichstatesthat   [_T]here_Ԁisnoclearreasoninprincipleorpolicywhythistypeofallegederror[failuretoadvise]likeanaffirmativemisstatement,shouldnotbeevaluatedunderthefamiliar_Strickland_analysis. xx   C.0 ` Whatis adequateadviceunder_Soriano_ԀandBautista? ` (#` (# Ѐ0  8` (#(#1.8 ` ` _Soriano_advisingadefendantthataplea mighthave   immigrationconsequencesisnotanadequateefforttoinformadefendantabouttheimmigrationconsequencesofaconviction.Adefendantshouldbeabletomake informeddecisionsafter meaningfulconsultationwithhisattorney.AproformacautioninthelanguageofP.C.1016.5(b)isnotadequate.  x x   8 ` 2.0 ` x` xBautistaAdefendantisnotproperlyadvisedabout  immigrationconsequencesevenifanattorneytellshisclientthathe wouldbedeportedforapleatoan aggravatedfelonywheretheotherimmigrationconsequences(e.g.,permanentbanishment)andalternativedispositionsarenotdiscussed.  x x   ̀  D.8 ` CanAffirmative_Misadvice_ԀAboutImmigrationConsequences  Constitute_IAC_? ` x` x     +0  0` (#(#2  1  .3  0 ` (#` (#  _Resendiz_ԄYes++݌  (# (# Ќ    8 ` 2.8 ` x` xThetrendinotherstatesandinunpublished " decisionsinCaliforniaistofindthattellingaclientthathe may might canor couldbedeported,whendeportationismandatoryortheoffenseisdefinitelya_deportable_Ԁoffenseis_misadvisement_.ThisistheholdingoftherecentSixthDistrictCourtofAppealsunpublished ($$ decisioninPeoplev.SanchezMartinez(April2, )%% 2004)2004Cal.App._Unpubl_.LEXIS3047(H025745)+''     8 Note:Thisisthestrongestargumentfordeficient  attorneyperformance    b (Ƽ00b  E.8 ` DoesanAttorneyHavetheDutytoDefendClientAgainst  AdverseImmigrationConsequences(AssumingitisaHighPriorityforDefendant)? ` x` x    `      8 ` 1.8 ` x` xImpliedby_Soriano_,Peoplev._Barocio_Ԁ(1989)   216Cal.App.3d99andP.C.1016.5.      8 ` 2.8 ` x` xBautistaPlacesaffirmativedutyoncounselto   utilizedefensetechniquestoavoidapleaofguiltytoan aggravatedfelonysuchaspleadinguptoamoreseriousoffenseorrelatedoffenseorseeking364daysratherthan365dayswhereasentenceofoneyearormoreisan aggravatedfelony.    0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#  (# (# 8  8`   8 ` x` xNote:Insteadofagreeingtofelonyprobationwhere364vs.365isanissue,didcounselaskforanindicatedsentence?Aconditionalsentence?Two364dayconsecutivesentences?Waiverofcredits?IfD.A.refusestoagreeto364daysentencecouldcounselhavehadareasonablechanceofpleadingtoallcountswithanindicatedsentenceof364daystherebybypassinganunreasonableprosecutingattorney?Coulddefendanthaveagreedtoa strikeinexchangefora364daysentence?Wasthereachanceofobtainingasubstitutedchargeorchangeintheinformationsothataconvictionandsentenceof365ormorewouldnotbean aggravatedfelony?      F.8 ` DoesanAttorneyHaveaDutytoDefendAgainstanAdverse &"" Sentence? ` x` x   8 ` 1.8 ` x` xPeoplev._Barocio_!Yes!Counselcommitted_IAC_ )%% byfailingtoadviseofpotentialsentencingoptionwhichcouldhaveavoidedadverseimmigration +'' consequences.      8 ` 2.8 ` x` x_Soriano_Implied!Counselfailedtoattemptto  negotiatea364daysentence p         ` 3.0 BautistaYes(dicta)  (# (#   8 ` 4.8 ` x` xPeoplev.Guzman(2/3/03)Yesunpublished6th   DistrictdecisionH022726.5yearsuspendedsentencewith30daysjailforviolationofP.C.114. Fundamentalfairnessrequiresthatsentencingdecisionsstemfromatrialcourtsinformeddiscretion.Manoukianconcurring   statesthatdefendantwasdeniedeffectivecounselforfailureofcounseltorequestImpositionofSentenceSuspendedratherthanExecutionofSentenceSuspended.    b #(00b   `      8  8`    ! !PrejudiceProng! !Reasonableprobabilitythatbutforcounselserrors  defendantwouldnothavepleadguilty.Reasonableprobabilitymaybelessthan50%butmustbeenoughtoundermineconfidenceintheoutcome.    8  A.8`   IsDefendantsDeclarationCorroboratedIndependentlyby  ObjectiveEvidence?Peoplev.Alvernaz(1992)2Cal.4th924,  938;InreResendiz` x` x   8 ` 1.8 ` x` xDeclarationsbyfamily/friendsastodefendants  deeptiestothe"񀀀"community.Theneedtoprotectthesetiescorroboratesdefendantsassertionhewouldnothavepleadguilty.    8  8`   2.8 ` x` xIsthereareasonablyprobablemeritorious # defenseordispositivemotion?$      8 ` 3.8 ` x` xDidthedefendanthaveareasonablyprobable &"" chanceofanalternativedisposition?(E.g.,pleadingupward,reasonablyrelatedplea,aslightchangeofsentence!evenastiffersentence(2consecutive364daysentences.)     +''    ` 8 Note:OfferingtoPleadtoagreateroffense,areasonablyrelatedoffensewiththesameexposure,aslightchangeintheinformationespeciallywherethereisafactualbasis,orofferingtopleadforastiffersentence(e.g.,twoconsecutive364daysentences)addscredibility       ` b %(h80#b  8 ` 4.8 ` x` xIfthecourtwasadvisedofimmigration   consequencesandanalternativedispositionwouldthishavemadeadifferenceinpleabargainingorsentence?    b '( 88%b8  B.8`   Canthedefendantsalternativedispositions/defensesbe   corroboratedbydeclarationsorexpertwitnesses?Seee.g.,Bautista. ` x` x 8  C.8`   Declarationsbytheprosecutingattorneythathe/shewouldnot  haveacceptedanyotherdispositionshouldbedeemedirrelevant.Under_Strickland_Ԁv._Washintgon_(1984)466U.S.  668,695,courtmustconsiderissueinabstractwithoutregardto unusualpropensitiestowardharshnessorleniencyonthepartofaparticulardecisionmaker.InHillv._Lockhart_Ԁ(1985)  474U.S.52,thecourtcited_Strickland_forthepropositionthat  anassessmentofprejudiceshouldbebasedupona reasonabledecisionmaker. ` x` x   IV.0  0` (#(#NutsandBoltsOnPreparingHabeas` (#` (#  8  A.8`   ConsultwithImmigrationAttorneyexperiencedwith   immigrationconsequencesofcriminalconvictions ` x` x 8  B.8`   Obtainfileoftrialcounselincludingnotes.(SeeattachedState # BarEthicsOpinion) ` x` x   C.0 ` InterviewTrialCounsel&""` (#` (# 8  D.8`   DeclarationsofTrialCounsel,Client,ImmigrationAttorney, ($$ FamilyandFriends;alsoconsiderappropriatenessandnecessityoftheDeclarationofanExpertWitness. ` x` x    `   +'' EA E  8 E  b +(08'b IV.0  OtherRemedies(#(#  b -(J80+b8  A.8`   IsclientaU.S.citizenwithoutknowingit?` x` x b /(Z88-b8  B.8`   _Expungements_Ԁper1203.4/DismissalforDeferredEntryof  Judgment/DismissalforProp.36forfirstoffensesimplepossessionwithnopriordiversion. ` x` x 8  C.8`   P.C.17toreducefelonytomisdemeanortoqualifyforpetty   offenseexception ` x` x   D.0 ` P.C.1018 ` (#` (# b 1(j88/b 3     3 S2j  E  .3  0 `   P.C.1016.53 SAS݌ ` (#` (# Ќ  8  F.8`   Coram_Nobis_!Def.thinksheisaU.S.citizen` x` x 8  G.8`   ModificationofSentenceorRecallofSentence` x` x   H.8 ` OtherConstitutionalInfirmities` x` x b A(5881b8  I.8`   Wasmotioncounselineffective?` x` x   b 7(Ţ08Ab 3   3V2Ţ  VI  .3  0    ProceduralIssues3VV݌(#(# Ќ    A.0 ` Habeas!` (#` (#    `   8 ` 1.8 ` x` xIsthereaviablebasisforarelatedhabeaspetition  andissuchapetitionnecessarytofillinevidentiarygapsintherecordonappeal?      b 9(007b 3     3iY2  B  .3  0 `   AppealofDenialofMotiontoVacate3iYY݌#` (#` (# Ќ     ` 8  8`   Note:0 ` x` xMotionstoVacatefor_IAC_Ԁarefrequentlyfiledinsteadof %!! ahabeasfortworeasons:1)Thedefendantisinremovalproceedingsandneedsfastreliefamotioncanbeplacedonthemotioncalendarwithinapproximately15days;and2)Ifthedefendantisnolongeronprobationorparole,habeascorpusactioncouldbebarredbecauseahabeasrequiresthatthedefendantisincustodyorconstructivecustody.,(( x x Їb =(809b  8 ` 1.8 ` x` xArguablythecourtshaveinherentauthorityto  considermotionstovindicateconstitutionalrights._Murgia_Ԁv.MunicipalCourt(1975)15  Cal.3d286;Peoplev._Fosselman_(1983)33  Cal.3d572(specificallyappliedtoIACinmotionfornewtrialeventhoughP.C.1181doesnotenumerateIACasground).      8 ` 2.8 ` x` xThisnonstatutorymotionisconceptually   differentthancoramnobis.IACcannotberaisedincoramnobis.      8 ` 3.8 ` x` xIsadenialofamotiontovacateappealable?   Arguably,under1237,subdivision(b)itisappealableasan ordermadeafterjudgment,affectingthesubstantialrightsoftheparty.(Seee.g.Peoplev._Totari_(2002)28Cal..4th876  [1016.5StatutoryMotiontoVacateisappealableper1237,subd.(b)sinceevidenceoutsideoftherecordmustbesubmitted;thisqualifiesunderthe silentrecordexceptiontothegeneralruleofnonappealabilityofapostjudgmentorderofdenial.])      b ?(%88=b  8 ` 4.8 ` x` xAnappellatecourtcoulddisagreebutgoonto  hearthemeritsofthecasebytreatingtheappealasahabeaspetition.(Seee.g.Inre_Peredes_  (2003)2003Cal.App._Unpub_.LEXIS11466  citingPeoplev._Gallardo_,77Cal.App.4th971,   976,987989.)Alternatively,thecourtcouldaffirmthedenialofthemotiontovacatebecausetheappealisfrivolous,ordismisstheappealandrequirethefilingofawritofhabeascorpus.       `    8 ` 8 ` x` xNote:0  IfthePeoplemovetodismissa &"" defendantsappealofanorderdenyingamotiontovacate,therecommendedpracticeistoobtaintheapprovalofSDAPtofilearelatedhabeascorpus.      #  +'' #$H@ COMPENSATIONFORHABEASWORKINSDAPCASES     Priorto1998,apanelattorneyintheSixthDistricthadtomakeamotiontoexpandappointmentinordertoreceiveanycompensationforworkdoneonhabeaspetitions.In1998,thecourtchangeditspolicy,andallowedSDAPtodeterminebothifthebringingofahabeaspetitionwasreasonable,andtoawardcompensationuptothecompensationguidelineoftwelvehours.Ifaclaimforahabeaspetitionexceededtheguideline,andanamountovertheguidelinewasbeingrecommendedbySDAP,thatrecommendationhadtobesenttothePresidingJusticefordeterminationofreasonablecompensationforthehabeaspetition.ThepolicychangewasapprovedbytheSixthDistrictCourtofAppealwiththeunderstandingthatitwouldapplyonlytopetitionsinwhichthepanelattorneyhadconsultedwithSDAPandreceivedapprovalpriortofilingthepetition.  Insomecases,theassistanceofaprofessionalinvestigatororexpertwouldgreatlyadvancetheclientsinterests.PursuanttoPenalCodesection1241,theCourtofAppealhastheauthoritytoawardareasonablesumfor necessaryexpenses.Insomeappellatecourts,appointedcounselisentitledtoexpertinvestigationfundswithoutpriorapproval.(SeeCaliforniaSupremeCourtPoliciesRegardingCasesArisingFromJudgmentsofDeath,Section22.3; [_w]ithout_Ԁpriorauthorizationofthecourt,counselmayincurexpensesuptoatotalof$3000forhabeascorpusinvestigation....)  TheSixthDistrictdoesnotreimburseinvestigativeexpensesunlessthecourthasapprovedthem.Thus,unlessyouarewillingtoriskpayingforinvestigativeexpensesoutofyourownpocket,youshouldnotexpendinvestigativefeesuntiltheyhavebeenapprovedbytheCourtofAppeal.  Inordertoseekinvestigativeorexpertfees,counselmustfileanexpartemotion.Themotionmustspecifythelinesofinquirywhichtheinvestigatororexpertwillpursue.(Peoplev._Faxel_(1979)91Cal.App.3d327,330.)Theshowingmustbeasspecificas   possible.(_Corenevsky_Ԁv.SuperiorCourt(1984)36Cal.3d307,320.) !   IftheCourtofAppealdeniesthemotion,thisfactshouldbementionedinthepleadingsectionofthehabeaspetition.Itshouldbeallegedthatthedefendantwouldhavemadeabetterfactualpresentationhadthemotionbeengranted.Inthisway,thedefendantwillbeabletobroadenhisfactualshowinginasubsequentfederalhabeasproceedingifheisabletoobtaininvestigativefundsfromthefederaldistrictcourt.  Insofarastheformatofthepetitionisconcerned,therearefouressentialcomponents:(1)thepleading;(2)theverification;(3)thepointsandauthorities;and(4)anysupportingexhibits.Obviously,eachoftheseportionsrequirescarefulattention. ,((   Withrespecttothepleading,itisessentialtonotethatahabeasactionisaproceedingwhichisseparateandapartfromapendingappeal.I F  1      ׀Thus,thepleadingmust,standing  alone,stateaprimafaciecaseforrelief.(Peoplev._Duvall_(1995)9Cal.4th464,474475.)  Inordertostatesuchacase,thepleadingmustallege:(1)anunlawfulrestraintonthe  petitioner'sliberty;K  F  2      ׀(2)ifheorsheisincarcerated,theplaceofimprisonmentandthename  oftheprisoncustodian;(3)thejudgmentuponwhichthepetitioner'srestraintisbased;(4)theessentialproceduralandsubstantivefactsofthecase;(5)thelegalclaimuponwhich   reliefissought;and(6)aprayerforrelief.  Insofarastheverificationisconcerned,itmaybesignedbythepetitioner.However,iftimeiswastingandthepetitionerislocatedoutsidethejurisdiction,counselmayexecutetheverification.Importantly,theverificationmustbebasedonpersonalknowledge.Inthiscontext,personalknowledgemaybebasedonareviewoftranscriptsandcourtdocuments.However,iftheverificationismadeonotherthanpersonalknowledge,itwillbedefectiveandthepetitionwillbedenied.(Peoplev.McCarthy(1986)176Cal.App.3d593,596597.)    Followingtheverification,thenextportionofthedocumentshouldbeamemorandumofpointsandauthorities.Thedocumentshouldcloselyresembleanappellant'sopeningbrief.Thus,itshouldcommencewithanappropriatestatementoffactswhichshouldbefollowedbylegalargument.Importantly,evenifthehabeasactionisrelatedtoapendingappeal,thefactsandlegalargumentmuststandaloneandcannotbeincorporatedbyreferencefromanotherbrief.Thisissosincethehabeasactionisaseparatelegalproceedingunlessanduntilitisformallyconsolidatedwiththeappeal.(InreRonald  E.(1977)19Cal.3d315,322,fn.3.)    Asthefinalportionofahabeaspetition,counselwillwanttoincludeanyrelevantdeclarationsorotherexhibitswhichbearontheissuesinthecase.Iftheexhibitsarefewinnumber,theymaybeincludedatthebackofthebriefsolongastheyareproperlylabeled.Iftheexhibitsarelengthy,theyshouldbelodgedwiththecourtunderseparatecover.Onlyasinglecopyoftheexhibitsneedbelodged.  ThedenialofapetitionbecomesfinalimmediatelyiftheCourtofAppealhasnot # previouslyissuedanalternativewritorordertoshowcause.(Cal.RulesofCt.,rule24(b)(2)(A).)Thatmeansthatapetitionforreviewfromsummarydenialofapetitionforwritofhabeascorpusmustbefiledwithintendays.(Cal.RulesofCt.,rule28(e)(1).)  However,thedenialofapetitionforwritofhabeascorpusthatisfiledonthesamedayasthedecisioninarelatedappealbecomesfinalatthesametimeastherelatedappeal.(Cal.RulesofCt.,rule24(b)(4).)Inthiscircumstance,apetitionforreviewinthehabeasproceedingisduebetweenthe31stand40thdaysfollowingtheCourtofAppealsorderdenyingrelief.(Cal.RulesofCt.,rule28(e)(1).)  ItisessentialtonotethatRule28(d),CaliforniaRulesofCourt,requiresthefilingoftwoseparatepetitionsforreviewiftheCourtofAppealdeniedapetitionwithoutanordertoshowcauseanddidnotformallyconsolidatetheappealandwritproceedings.Forexample,ifthehabeaspetitionisdeniedonthesameday,eitherbyseparateorderorintheappellateopinion,buttheappealandhabeaswerenotformallyconsolidated,twopetitionsforreviewmustbefiled(i.e.oneforthedirectappealandoneforthehabeaspetition).Eachpetitionwouldbeduewithin31to40daysoftheCourtofAppealsresolutionofthetwoproceedings.#H(g#$