ÿWPC”@ Lt¾Uka«72 vÎ#±¤‹Lï+ÑwçòÚµÖ»e·-ù/Y‹©Liáæÿ[TÞy­òV¿Ýl+GX…¶ª%xZK—i3ÜQ éá¡° µ}R_S‰ük{…²?ŒÅ\ñÓS>€ šºN÷~3Ž;æ‹tñTõ3`˜X7#¦ÿßa¶ÉA /È‹½¯Mdgf¦´ecüÄÀ9«8 /˜ s•!R—¿¶_“uÌÁËܳ7~5T‘\úæ¥ý†YÊ®Ô- °w ìÍb¶)+KÈO]i€bRE„|èó•zTÄS ƒ7ÝôÙÈÞŽ¯ W¶”ß4•L3^⪾ŠÓ~ËÒðæ•ƒ=ävÏ´íZ–Œ'¦œ˜öHDpó>M‚2(n3¶"ÐY¸d1_•†ŸÉûßÐEËQSØiTø/-ÂÛ!zØ“mý$ÊJ­Þ>="éþ»a/ªk¾&Ò!ße³.jþtÄú0Õõvé`kü±XßzôµÚel:^'®I¶oXÎ&¿ÇÙ%:|:›Î‰ÎÒ° æîü™2úþê² NŸ,÷#޼C-L:J¸Qºit#Ï¥Àœ²Ú Õð“‰òíp=wÓùiE¨KÁ‰!Ûžª%/d$êÈ[¬ª¶¥]#!U1N7 %… 0q‹^ üw@ 4H \ k mm UN„ \Ò ?. 0 µm 0 D" Qf UN· 0c 1uh 72Ý 0w 0І 0  0´° 0Çd 0Û+ 0ï 0Dõ 1‡9 72Àò2 M?ïCÐ2M 01 0=7 0Èt 0>< 0Êz 0´D 0´ø 0a¬ 0´ 0´Á 09u! 0Ü®! 02Š" 0ü¼" 0:¸# 0…ò# 0_w$ 0 Ö$ 0kà% 0ÇK' B*) D3<) Co) D+‰) 0Ç´) 0ç{+ 06b, 0˜, 0: - 0hÚ- 0FB.U6ˆ.U>¾.U*ü.M&/(*/UNR/q / /N4L4 0N_4_4)­4FÖ5M8` 8@€: BÀ:7Ý:Ý:Ý:Ý:Ý:Ý:€>˜HP LaserJet 4ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0(ÈhH  Z‹6Times New Roman RegularX(I.$¡¡Ñ°°ÑÔ€ŠS2‹XXÔÑ  ÑÑѵž8‰ €‚Õ˜U™Dš›EœU£žD[8@Þ0Ȩ‰(q…3|xžÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ)¼^S Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular PeevyBransfordWainrightMaassUyedaw]henBoerckelGatlinIniguezMaleng opinQuestion[sBrechtAbrahamsonPlilerHofsheierDominguez 5Ý ƒQt$ÝÔ€Šã¸‹XXÔà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€This€is€a€rehash€of€a€newsletter€article€I€wrote€in€December€of€2002,€withÐ ° Ðrequisite€changes€in€the€Rules€of€Court€numbers€and€a€few€substantive€and€editorialÏmodifications.€(e(3Qt$¤¤Ý ƒ.!ÝѰ°ÑÔ€Šã¸‹XXÔÑ  ÑÑÑÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó GÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÑ H ÑÑ#€׉Šÿÿd#Ñ(ÈhH  Z6Times New Roman Regular(;3£$´´Ô2#ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à3#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)(Oé;$µµà0  àÔ2#ÔÚ  ÚaÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0` (#(#à(b·¤$¶¶à0  àà0` (#(#àÔ2#ÔÚ  ÚÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0¸ ` (#` (#à(xir$··à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àÔ2#Ô(Ú  Ú0Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0¸ (#¸ (#à(ŒÜ$¸¸à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àÔ2#Ô(Ú  ÚaÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0h(#(#à(ŸF$¹¹à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àÔ2#Ô(Ú  ÚÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0Àh(#h(#à(³Àô$ººà0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àÔ2#ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0À(#À(#à(ǵ{$»»à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àà0À(#À(#àÔ2#ÔÚ  ÚaÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0p(#(#à(F$ïïà0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àà0À(#À(#àà0p(#(#àÔ2#ÔÙ ÙÚ  ÚÚ  ÚÙ Ù)Ô3  Ôà0Èp(#p(#àÙ Ùxb«A_cgkosw{DiamondsDiamond Bullet````````` Ý ƒQt$ÝÔ€Šã¸‹XXÔà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔRaising€such€an€issue€for€the€first€time€in€a€review€petition€is€also,€generallyÐ ° Ðspeaking,€a€doomed€proposi‚tion.€(See€Rule€8.500(c)(1).)€€ (Ý ƒQt$ÝÔ€Šã¸‹XXÔà  àòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThis€will€rarely€be€a€factor€in€the€Sixth€District,€which,€as€a€matter€of€routine,Ð ° Ðorders€habeas€petitions€considered€together€with€an€appeal,€and€issues€the€opinion€andÏdenial€order€(or€OSC)€on€the€same€day.€€However,€the€10€day€deadline€may€becomeÏsignificant€if€you€are€handling€a€different€sort€of€habeas€petition,€e.g.,€a€stand€aloneÏhabeas€filed€in€the€Court€of€Appeal€after€denial€of€a€habeas€in€superior€court. åÝ ƒQt$ÝÔ€Šã¸‹XXÔà  àòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€I€have€sample€motions€for€appointment€of€counsel€which€I€would€be€happy€toÐ ° Ðprovide€on€request. ÆÝ ƒQt$ÝÔ€Šã¸‹XXÔà  àòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔJustice€Rushingððs€commendable€practice,€when€he€thinks€the€showing€inadequateÐ ° Ðto€require€augmentation,€is€to€deny€the€motion€ð ðwithout€prejudice€to€further€showing€inÐ °  Ðsupport€of€the€request.ðð€€Typically,€on€a€more€thorough€showing€of€the€need€forÏaugmentation,€the€motion€will€be€granted.0ÿÿ.Normal<ÿÿ:Definition T<GDÿÿ:Definition LÓ , ÓÓ;1ܰÜ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#;ÓÓ  ÓÓ8.°°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#8Ó8ÿÿ6Definitionòòóó('zÿÿ&H1ò òÔ  ÔÔ‡°°°Ôó óÔ  ÔÔ‡XXXÔ(oÿÿ&H2ò òÔ‡„„„Ôó óÔ‡XXXÔ(oÿÿ&H3ò òÔ‡¼¼¼Ôó óÔ‡XXXÔ(ÿÿ&H4ò òÔ‡XXXÔó óÔ‡XXXÔ(oÿÿ&H5ò òÔ‡ôôôÔó óÔ‡XXXÔ(oÿÿ&H6ò òÔ‡Ôó óÔ‡XXXÔ2ÿÿ0Addressòòóó8SPÿÿ6BlockquoteÓ , ÓÓ , ÓÓ;1ܰÜ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#;ÓÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÓ8.°°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#8Ó,ÿÿ*CITEòòóó,dlÿÿ*CODEÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡D<þ6X9`(Courier NewKÔÔ‡XXXÔÔS‡Eô\  `&Times New RomanSÔ4ÿÿ2Emphasisòòóó6&)ÿÿ4HyperlinkÔ  ÔÔ  ÔòòÔ ÿ ÔóóÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ  Ô<ÿÿ:FollowedHypeòòÔ €€ ÔóóÔ  Ô4goÿÿ2Keyboardò òÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡D<þ6X9`(Courier NewKÔó óÔ‡XXXÔÔS‡Eô\  `&Times New RomanSÔ<“›ÿÿ:PreformattedÓ/%° °Ïî ,KkŠ©È (#/ÓÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡D<þ6X9`(Courier NewKÔÔ‡XXXÔÔS‡Eô\  `&Times New RomanSÔÓ/%° °Ïî ,KkŠ©È (#/Ó<ÃÇÿÿ:z©Bottom of ÓI€:;4$À˜ ** €€d€dIÓÓ  ÓÔB  ÔÔ € ÔÔ‡ÔÔ?‡F%ä2¼A`Arial?ÔÓ9€<;*À  €€d€d9ÓÓ  ÓÔ‡XXXÔÔS‡Eô\  `&Times New RomanSÔÔ € Ô&ÿÿ0 d d9999'þÿÈÈÈÈdxd÷ÿdÿÿÿd'ÈÈÈÈdxd<ÃÇÿÿ:z©Top of ForÓI€:;4$À˜** €€d€dIÓÓ  ÓÔB  ÔÔ € ÔÔ‡ÔÔ?‡F%ä2¼A`Arial?ÔÓ9€<;*À  €€d€d9ÓÓ  ÓÔ‡XXXÔÔS‡Eô\  `&Times New RomanSÔÔ € Ô0Klÿÿ.SampleÔK‡D<þ6X9`(Courier NewKÔÔS‡Eô\  `&Times New RomanSÔ0ÿÿ.Strongò òó ó8dlÿÿ6TypewriterÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡D<þ6X9`(Courier NewKÔÔ‡XXXÔÔS‡Eô\  `&Times New RomanSÔ4ÿÿ2Variableòòóó:ÿÿ8HTML MarkupÔB  ÔÔ ÿ ÔÔ  Ô2 ÿÿ0CommentÔB  Ô<þ6X9`(Courier Newô\  `&Times New Roman%ä2¼A`Arial5@¬ Ð!Ü‹6Bodoni MT Black Regular gÝ ƒQt$ÝÔ€Šã¸‹XXÔà  àòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€For€example,€see€òòÔ‡ Šã¸‹‹Šã¸ÔPeople€v.€Superior€Court€(Romero)óó€(1996)€13€Cal.3d€497Ð ° Ð(ð ðòòRomeroóóðð)Ô#†Šã¸‹‹ Š㸈#Ô,€òòIn€re€George€T.€óó,€[teenððs€scary€poem€is€protected€speech,€not€criminalÐ °  Ðthreat],€òòPeople€v.€Sanders€óó(2003)€31€Cal.4th€318,€333[overruling€prior€bad€ruling€to€holdÐ ° Ðthat€parole€search€clause€that€police€are€unaware€of€does€not€preclude€Fourth€AmendmentÏclaim],€òòIn€re€Marquezóó€Ô‡ Šã¸‹‹Šã¸Ô(2003)€30€Cal.4th€14,Ô#†Šã¸‹‹ Š㸀#Ô[defendant€not€held€to€impossible€ð ðbut€forððÐ ° Ðtest€for€presentence€credits€when€custody€time€from€two€cases€would€otherwise€be€ð ðdeadÏtimeðð],€òòPeople€v.€Hofsheieróó€(2006)€37€Cal.4th€1135€[striking€down€mandatory€290Ð ° Ðregistration€for€statutory€oral€copulation€based€on€equal€protection€claim€whereÏregistration€is€discretionary€for€statutory€rape].http://www.sdap.org/pt-s-letters.html(ÍO$——ÔÿÔòòóóÔÿÔ Ý ƒQt$ÝÔ€Šã¸‹XXÔà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€exception,€discussed€below,€involves€habeas€petitions,€which€can€properly€beÐ ° Ðexhausted€by€means€of€a€habeas€petition€in€the€California€Supreme€Court. <Ý ƒQt$ÝÔ€Šã¸‹XXÔà  àòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔSee,€e.g.,€Justice€Kennardððs€dissenting€opinions€in€òòPeople€v.€Wims€óó(1995)òòóó€10Ð ° ÐCal.€4th€293,€320„327,€which€prefigured€the€òòApprendióó€holding€on€a€jury€trial€right€as€toÐ ° Ðproof€of€enhancements€and€in€òòPeople€v.€Brevermanóó€(1998)€19Cal.4th€142,€188„191,Ð ° Ðcorrectly€arguing€that€failure€to€instruct€on€manslaughter€as€an€LIO€of€murder€isÏmisinstruction€on€an€element€of€the€crime. VÝ ƒQt$ÝÔ€Šã¸‹XXÔà  àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€The€form€for€a€federal€habeas€petition€is€simple€to€download€and€fill€out€for€yourÐ ° Ðclient.€€Just€go€to€the€website€of€the€Northern€District€Court€(Ô4‚TÝ dÔÝ‚NÍOÝÔÿÔòòÝ  ÝÔ5  Ôhttp://www.cand.uscourts.Ð ° Ðgov/)Ô6ÔÝ‚NÍO.ƒÝóóÔÿÔÝ  ÝÔ7Ý ~\Ô€,€click€ð ðForms,ðð€ð ðPrisoner,ðð€and€ð ðHabeas€Corpus€Petition,ðð€and€you€will€be€there.(http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/) d -Ý ƒQt$ÝÔ€Šã¸‹XXÔà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡ Šã¸‹‹Šã¸ÔÔ‡ ˆÈ ˆ‹ Šã¸Ô€ð ðBefore€the€Supreme€Court,€a€court€of€appeal,€or€the€appellate€department€of€aÐ ° Ðsuperior€court€renders€a€decision€in€a€proceeding€other€than€a€summary€denial€of€aÏpetition€for€an€extraordinary€writ,€based€upon€an€issue€which€was€not€proposed€or€briefedÏby€any€party€to€the€proceeding,€the€court€shall€afford€the€parties€an€oppor‚tunity€to€presentÏtheir€views€on€the€matter€through€supplemental€briefing.€€If€the€court€fails€to€afford€thatÏopportunity,€a€rehearing€shall€be€ordered€upon€timely€petition€of€any€party.ðð€(Govt.€CodeÏðð€68081.)Ô#†ˆÈ ˆ ˆ ˆÈr#ÔÔ#†Šã¸‹ ˆˆÈ‘#Ô vÝ ƒQt$ÝÔ€Šã¸‹XXÔà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€I€am€grateful€to€my€esteemed€colleague,€Dallas€Sacher,€for€his€review€andÐ ° Ðcomments€on€an€early€draft€of€this€article,€which€improved€the€quality€of€the€writing,Ïhelped€me€to€emphasize€several€important€points,€and€saved€me€the€embarrassment€ofÏseveral€errors€which€might€have€otherwise€Ô_ÔappearÔ_Ô€in€the€text.€€I€am€solely€responsible€forÏany€mistakes€left€in€the€text€which€Dallasðð€Ô_ÔencyclopaedicÔ_Ô€mind€and€eagle€eye€may€haveÏmissed.Ý ƒ.!ÝѰ°ÑÔ€Šã¸‹XXÔÑ  ÑÑÑÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑH°Ñò òÑ€,ÑòòÑ8€÷aXdìdÈ8Ñà@::ìàÔ‡IŠ ³‹ Šã¸ÔALL€YOU€WILL€EVER€NEED€TO€KNOW€ABOUT€ˆÐ ° Ðà@X X ìàREHEARING€AND€REVIEW€PETITIONSÔ#†Šã¸‹ IŠ ³ã#Ôóóó óˆÐ â2 Ðñ€ñÓ€Óñ€ñÌñ€ñÓ€±Óñ€ñÓ€ÓÔ_Ôñ›ñññà@¶ ¶ ìàñññ›ñbyÔ_Ô€William€M.€Robinsonññ,€SDAP€Staff€Attorneyñññ‚ñ׃\×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô_ÔÔ_Ôñ‚ññœñÐ ”ä ÐñœñÔ_ÔÌà@y y ìàò òIntroduction€and€Summary€of€Argumentó óˆÐ ” ä ÐÔ_ÔññÓ  ÓññÔ_Ôà  àPicture€yourself€in€the€following€predicament:€€After€months€of€episodic€hard€workÏon€your€case€on€appeal,€which€included€one€or€more€promising€and€legally€challengingÏissues,€you€have€just€received€the€unanimous€unpublished€opinion€of€the€Court€of€AppealÏaffirming€the€judgment.€€The€opinion€cavalierly€thumps€your€favorite€issues€in€the€case,Ïdistorts€or€avoids€key€facts€which€support€your€argument,€and€generally€gets€your€bloodÏboiling€to€the€point€that€it€would€cause€a€reasonable€person€to€act€rashly.€€Does€this€soundÏfamiliar?Ìà  àIt€very€well€may.€€Once€you€have€written€cruel€but€true€comments€in€the€margin€ofÏthe€opinion€and€let€out€some€of€your€frustration€with€a€colleague,€you€will€then€turn€to€theÏquestion€of€what€steps€need€to€be€taken€to€continue€the€fight€for€your€client.€€Is€a€petition€forÏrehearing€either€necessary€or€useful?€€And€should€a€review€petition€be€filed,€and€what€kindÏof€review€petition€should€it€be?Ìà  àThis€article€intends€to€address€this€seeming€ð ðall„is„lostðð€moment€in€appellate€practiceÏand€the€steps€that€can€and€should€(and€sometimes€should€not)€be€taken€on€behalf€of€yourÏclient.€€The€thesis€of€the€article€is€that€rehearing€petitions€are€essential€in€certain€rareÏsituations,€and€useful€in€a€few€others,€but€that€review€petitions€are€almost€always€crucial,Ïespecially€when€your€case€involves€any€kind€of€claim€of€federal€constitutional€error.Ìà  àAs€discussed€in€Part€I€below,€a€rehearing€petition€is€absolutely€necessary€in€twoÐ ”%ä + ÐÔ_Ôsituations:€where€the€court€decides€the€case€on€a€legal€principle€or€ground€not€discussed€inÏthe€briefs,€and€when€the€courtððs€opinion€omits€or€misstates€an€issue€or€a€material€fact.€ÏRehearing€petitions€are€also€useful€when€there€is€a€fundamental€mistake€of€law€or€faultyÏreasoning€in€the€opinion€and€you€have€some€reason€to€believe€that€the€court€will€correct€itsÏerror€in€your€clientððs€favor€if€it€is€pointed€out€to€them€in€a€rehearing€petition,€including€theÏsituation€where€the€Court€of€Appeal€incorrectly€makes€a€finding€of€procedural€default.€€AsÏto€all€other€rehearing€petitions:€Beware!€€Avoid€using€a€rehearing€petition€as€a€means€ofÏventing€the€rage€and€frustration€discussed€in€the€introductory€paragraph,€as€it€rarely€servesÏany€purpose€useful€to€your€client€or€to€your€own€credibility€with€the€court.Ìà  àReview€petitions€should€generally€be€filed€in€any€case€which€involves€a€ð ðreview„¼worthyðð€issue,€i.e.,€where€you€believe€that€there€is€a€legal€claim€that€could€be€of€interest€toÏthe€Supreme€Court,€and€in€every€case€in€which€you€have€raised€a€claim€of€federalÏconstitutional€error€where€your€client€has€any€chance€of€obtaining€relief€in€federal€court.€€AÏreview€petition€should€never€be€ð ðtossed€offðð€with€a€rehash€of€your€opening€brief.€€If€youÏhave€a€ð ðreview„worthyðð€issue,€you€should€carefully€frame€the€issue€statement€and€theÏð ðReasons€for€Granting€Reviewðð€portion€of€the€petition,€and€use€the€brief€portion€of€theÏpetition€to€lay€out€your€argument,€the€grave€problems€with€the€Court€of€Appealððs€analysisÏin€your€case,€and€further€develop€the€reasons€why€a€grant€of€review€is€needed€to€resolve€anÏimportant€question€of€law.€€Ìà  àA€very€different€focus€is€called€for€in€a€petition€filed€primarily€to€exhaust€your€clientððsÏclaims€of€federal€constitutional€error.€€The€goal€in€this€situation€is€to€facilitate€the€filing€ofÏthe€federal€habeas€petition€(or,€rarely,€cert.€petition)€by€your€client€or€by€you€on€his€behalf.€ÏThis€can€be€accomplished€by€filing€a€petition€which€contains€the€necessary€elements€for€aÏfederal€habeas€claim,€i.e.,€a€clear€statement€of€the€nature€of€the€federal€constitutional€error,Ïwith€references€to€the€specific€constitutional€provisions€(e.g.,€the€6th€&€14th€Amends.),Ïcitations€to€pertinent€U.S.€Supreme€Court€authority,€an€explanation€of€why€the€Court€ofÏAppealððs€opinion€is€Ô‡ˆÈ ˆ‹Šã¸Ôð ðcontrary€to,€or€involved€an€unreasonable€application€of,€clearlyÐ °+'4 Ðestablished€Federal€law,€as€determined€by€the€Supreme€Court€of€the€United€States€.€.€.ððÔ#†Šã¸‹ ˆˆÈ#Ô€(Ô‡ŠÒý ‹‹Šã¸Ô28Ð 0-€(6 ÐU.S.C.€ðð€2254(d)(1)Ô#†Šã¸‹ ‹ŠÒýþ#Ô),€and€an€explanation€how€the€error€was€prejudicial€under€the€controllingÐ ° Ðstandard.Ó€€ÓÌÓ€€ÔÓÌI.à  àò òTO€REHEARING€OR€NOT€TO€REHEARING.€.€.€.׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×ó óÐ 0€ Ðà  àThe€question€whether,€and€when,€to€file€a€petition€for€rehearing€is€an€area€of€criminalÏappellate€practice€where€there€is€considerable€confusion€and€disagreement.€€This€portion€ofÏthe€article€seeks€to€provide€a€framework€for€deciding€whether€a€rehearing€petition€is€eitherÏnecessary€or€useful€(or€both).€€Much€of€the€discussion€will€hopefully€tie€into€themesÏaddressed€in€the€review€petition€portion€of€the€article,€including€the€need€to€raise€certainÏpoints€via€rehearing,€and€issues€about€what€is,€or€isnððt,€needed€to€preserve€against€proceduralÏdefault€in€later€collateral€relief€habeas€petitions€in€federal€court.Ìà  àThe€rules€of€court€permit€a€party€to€petition€for€rehearing€within€fifteen€days€after€anÏopinion€is€filed.€(Rule€8.268.)€€The€court€has€until€the€thirtieth€day€to€grant€or€denyÏrehearing,€and€it€is€deemed€denied€if€no€order€is€filed.€(òòIbidóó.)Ð 6† Ðà  àThe€overwhelming€majority€of€rehearing€petitions€are€denied.€€Thus,€it€often€seemsÏthere€is€no€good€reason€to€file€a€rehearing€petition.€€At€the€same€time,€rehearing€canÏsometimes€be€a€prompt€and€convenient€way€of€responding€to€an€appellate€opinion€whichÏdodges,€slurs,€or€bulldozes€over€meritorious€appellate€issues.€€Ìà  àGenerally€speaking,€there€are€four€sets€of€reasons€to€file€a€rehearing€petition:€ÌÓ33€Óà8  àà ` à(1)€The€court€has€decided€the€case€based€on€an€issue€not€proposed€orÏbriefed€by€either€party;€Ð Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` à(2)€The€opinion€of€the€Court€of€Appeal€omits€or€misstates€an€issue€orÏa€material€fact;€Ð Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` à(3)€There€is€a€fundamental€error€(or€errors)€in€the€opinion€of€the€CourtÏof€Appeal€which€skews€the€analysis€and€result,€or€an€erroneous€finding€ofÏprocedural€default€by€the€Court,€and€there€is€a€reasonable€possibility€of€a€cureÏby€means€of€a€rehearing€petition;€and€Ð›(ë#,Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` à(4)€You€are€so€fumed€with€the€way€the€opinion€of€the€Court€of€AppealÏhas€treated€you,€your€client,€and/or€the€factual€background€and€legalÏarguments€presented€that€you€feel€compelled€to€point€out€everything€thatððsÏwrong€or€unfair€about€their€opinion€in€a€rehearing€petition.€€Ð Ð Ð  ÐÓ€33ÜÓÓ€€ÓÌÓ€€žÓà8  àà ` àIn€my€view,€the€first€three€grounds€are€all€legitimate€reasons€to€file€aÏrehearing€petition,€but€the€fourth€is€not.€€I€will€discuss€each€in€its€turn.€€KeepÏin€mind,€though,€that€the€categories€may€sometimes€blur€or€overlap,€makingÏit€hard€to€sort€them€out.Ð Ð Ð  ÐÓ€€ÓÌÓ€€öÓà  àA.€€ò òCase€Decided€on€an€Unbriefed€Issue:€Entitlement€to€Rehearing€perÐ |Ì  ÐGovernment€Code€ðð€Ô‡ Šã¸‹‹Šã¸ÔÔ‡ ˆÈ ˆ‹ Šã¸Ô68081Ô#†ˆÈ ˆ ˆ ˆÈœ #ÔÔ#†Šã¸‹ ˆˆÈ» #Ôó ó.€€Youððve€written€a€great€brief,€and€should€win€on€the€issues.€Ð R  ÐBut€the€Court€of€Appeal€decides€against€you€based€on€a€point€of€law€or€a€procedural€defaultÏnever€briefed€or€discussed€by€you€or€the€attorney€general.€€What€can€you€do€besides€cry€intoÏyour€teacup?Ìà  àThere€is€an€avenue€of€redress.€€Government€Code€section€Ô‡ Šã¸‹‹Šã¸ÔÔ‡ ˆÈ ˆ‹ Šã¸Ô68081Ô#†ˆÈ ˆ ˆ ˆȉ"#ÔÔ#†Šã¸‹ ˆˆȨ"#Ô€Ô‡ Šã¸‹‹Šã¸ÔÔ‡ ˆÈ ˆ‹ Šã¸Ôrequires€the€CourtÐ X Ðof€Appeal€to€request€supplemental€briefing€if€they€plan€to€decide€a€case€based€on€an€issue€notÏbriefed€by€the€parties,€and€provides€that€ð ðrehearing€shall€be€orderedÔ#†ˆÈ ˆ ˆ ˆÈ##ÔÔ#†Šã¸‹ ˆˆÈ2##Ôðð€upon€timely€petition€ifÐ X Ðsupplemental€briefing€has€not€been€requested.׃V×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð ˆØ Ðà  àIn€my€experience,€one€can€actually€get€rehearing€granted€on€this€ground.€€This€hasÏhappened€to€me€twice,€both€involving€published€opinions.€€The€first€time,€the€majority€in€aÏSixth€District€case€engaged€in€some€creative€statutory€interpretation€of€section€22(b)€of€theÏPenal€Code€which€had€not€been€addressed€by€either€appellant€or€respondent,€and€which€wasÏultimately€repudiated€by€the€Supreme€Court€in€òòPeopleóó€v.€òòMendozaóó€Ô‡ Šã¸‹‹Šã¸Ô(1998)€18€Cal.4th€1114Ô#†Šã¸‹‹ Šã¸é&#Ô.Ð $X( ÐÑ,Ñâ âÑÑÑ  ÑÑHHÑÑ8€÷aŠXdìXdì8Ñâ âÑ  ÑMy€opportunity€to€brief€this€issue€after€rehearing€probably€played€a€big€part€in€review€beingÏgranted€in€that€case.€€The€second€time,€a€different€court€deciding€a€credits€issue€in€favor€ofÏmy€client€went€out€of€its€way€to€concomitantly€order€credits€limited€to€15€percent€underÏPenal€Code€section€2933.1,€a€legal€question€never€briefed€by€the€parties,€and€one€which,€asÏit€turned€out,€violated€Ex€Post€Facto€Clause€because€my€clientððs€current€robbery€crime€wasÏnot€a€serious€felony€when€it€was€committed€in€1996.€€In€both€cases,€I€successfully€petitionedÏfor€rehearing,€citing€Government€Code€section€68081.€€Notably,€in€the€latter€case,€the€courtÏcorrected€itself€and€deleted€all€reference€to€section€2933.1€in€the€opinion€after€rehearing.Ï(See€òòPeople€v.€Mack€óó(2002)€99€Cal.App.4th€329,€rev.€gtd.€8„28„02.)€€Ð °  Ðà  àSo,€if€the€court€reaches€out€in€your€case€and€decides€it€on€an€issue€that€was€neverÏbriefed,€you€should€always€petition€for€rehearing€under€Government€Code€section€68081.€ÏThis€type€of€rehearing€is€non„controversial,€as€itððs€hard€to€imagine€a€situation€where€youÏwould€not€want€a€rehearing€to€address€an€issue€the€court€believes€is€decisive€which€youÏnever€briefed.Ìà  àThe€kicker€here€is€that€the€court€may€not€agree€with€you€that€the€issue€or€sub„issueÏfits€within€the€rubric€of€a€decision€based€on€an€issue€not€briefed€by€the€parties.€€Recently,€theÏSupreme€Court€has€made€it€clear€that€the€requirement€of€supplemental€briefing€inÏGovernment€Code€section€68081€does€not€apply€if€an€issue€can€be€considered€ð ðfairlyÏincludedðð€within€the€issues€presented.€€(òòPeople€v.€Aliceóó€(2007)€41€Cal.4th€668,€677„679.)Ð °$ ÐHowever,€the€actual€holding€in€òòAliceóó,€that€a€separate€basis€for€appealability€relied€upon€byÐ 0!€& Ðthe€Court€of€Appeal€to€uphold€the€propriety€of€a€prosecution€appeal€was€not€fairly€includedÏin€the€issues€presented€on€appeal€(òòibidóó.),€may€be€helpful.€€In€any€case,€you€will€need€toÐ 0$€* Ðcarefully€explain€why€this€rule€applies€to€your€situation,€and€why€the€issue€at€hand€is€notÏð ðfairly€includedðð€in€the€issues€briefed€by€the€parties.ÌÓ€€ÓÌÓ€€v0Óà  àB.€€ò òOpinion€Omits€or€Misstates€an€Issue€or€Material€Factó ó.€€Most€rehearingÐ 0)€$1 Ðpetitions€get€filed€under€the€rubric€of€Rule€8.500(c)(2),€which€provides€as€follows:ÌÓ33€Óà8  àA€party€may€petition€for€review€without€petitioning€for€rehearing€in€the€CourtÏof€Appeal,€but€as€a€policy€matter€the€Supreme€Court€normally€will€accept€theÐ i-¹(6 ÐCourt€of€Appeal€opinionððs€statement€of€the€issues€and€facts€unless€the€partyÏhas€called€the€Court€of€Appealððs€attention€to€any€alleged€omission€orÏmisstatement€of€an€issue€or€fact€in€a€petition€for€rehearing.Ð Ð Ð  ÐÓ€33d1ÓÓ€€ÓÌÓ€€53Óà  àWhether€to€file€such€a€rehearing€petition€is€a€subject€on€which€criminal€appellateÏpractitioners€disagree.€€In€the€view€of€some,€including€a€few€luminaries€in€the€field,€you€areÏbetter€off€òònotóó€asking€for€rehearing€and€giving€the€Court€of€Appeal€a€chance€to€clean€up€itsÐ É  Ðmistakes€and€reduce€your€clientððs€chance€of€ultimately€prevailing€on€the€issues€in€a€federalÏhabeas€petition.€€This€viewpoint€suggests€you€simply€point€out€the€error€and€argue€your€issueÏin€the€review€petition;€the€Supreme€Court€will€invariably€deny€review€on€the€merits,€and€hasÏnever,€insofar€as€anyone€knows,€denied€review€on€procedural€grounds€based€on€a€failure€toÏcomply€with€Rule€8.50(c)(2)€or€its€predecessor€versions€(former€Rules€28(c)(2)€andÏ29(b)(2)).€€The€federal€courts€will€not€apply€a€forfeiture€based€on€this€rule,€so€the€argumentÏgoes,€as€long€as€the€issue€was€fully€presented€in€the€review€petition,€and€denied€on€theÏmerits.Ìà  àIn€my€view,€following€this€line€of€thinking€makes€sense€only€if€you€can€absolutelyÏguarantee€that€review€will€not€be€granted.€€If€review€òòisóó€granted,€the€California€SupremeÐ É ÐCourt€can,€and€normally€will,€refuse€to€reach€an€issue€because€of€the€failure€to€petition€forÏrehearing.€(See,€e.g.,€òòPeople€v.€Peevyóó€(1998)€17€Cal.4th€1184,€1205„1206€and€òòPeople€v.Ð É  ÐBransfordóó€(1994)€8€Cal.4th€885,€893,€fn.€10.)€€If€the€Supreme€Court€declines€to€reach€anÐ I™" Ðissue€because€of€this€procedural€default,€thereððs€a€good€chance€a€federal€court€will€refuse€toÏconsider€the€issue€on€federal€review€based€on€the€fact€that€it€was€decided€on€ð ðindepen‚dentÏand€adequate€state€procedural€grounds.ðð€(See,€e.g.,€òòWainright€v.€Sykesóó€(1977)€433€U.S.€72.)€Ð É#( ЀThere€may€be€ways€to€argue€around€default€ð!ð€e.g.,€that€the€procedural€rule€is€not€consistentlyÏapplied€(see€òòWells€v.€Maassóó€(9th€Cir.€1994)€28€F.3d€1005,€1010)€ð!ð€but€the€risk€of€default€isÐ É&", Ðnot,€in€my€view,€worth€the€potential€reward€of€avoiding€a€ð ðfix„upðð€opinion€on€rehearing€byÏthe€Court€of€Appeal.€€As€noted€above,€rehearing€is€very€rarely€granted.€€Furthermore,€mostÏð ðcorrectionsðð€of€the€opinions€by€the€court€of€appeal€will€not€mean‚ingfully€affect€your€clientððsÏright€or€chances€to€obtain€federal€habeas€relief;€and€they€could,€in€the€right€circumstances,Ð É,(4 Ðresult€in€a€more€favorable€opinion€ð!ð€e.g.,€finding€error€on€an€omitted€issue€or,€as€in€my€òòMackóóÐ ° Ðcase€cited€above,€correcting€an€erroneous€legal€holding€to€the€benefit€of€the€client.ñ˜ñÌñ˜ññžññ˜ñÌñ˜ñÌñžñÓ€€ÓÌÓ€€Ð=Óà  àC.€€ò òRehearing€to€Correct€Erroneous€or€Faulty€Reasoning€or€Analysisó ó.€€€Court€ofÐ 0€ ÐAppeal€opinions€will€sometimes€mess€things€up€pretty€badly:€a€basic€legal€principle€can€beÏbotched€in€their€analysis;€key€facts€discussed€in€the€summary€of€the€case€can€be€omitted€inÏthe€relevant€discussion€of€an€issue€or€of€prejudice;€a€federal€constitutional€aspect€of€yourÏargument€can€be€ignored,€rather€than€rejected;€or€the€court€could€employ€the€wrong€standardÏfor€assessing€error€or€prejudice.€€Another€very€troubling€problem€in€a€Court€of€AppealÏopinion€would€be€the€Courtððs€finding€of€a€procedural€default€which€is€not€supported€by€theÏrecord.€€Such€errors€donððt,€strictly€speaking,€fit€within€the€rubric€of€Rule€8.50(c)(2)€becauseÏthey€are€not€omissions€or€misstatements€of€a€material€fact€or€issue,€just€shoddy€or€erroneousÏanalysis.€€In€this€all„too„common€situation,€is€a€rehearing€petition€required€or€useful?€€Ìà  àIn€my€view,€the€decision€whether€to€ask€for€rehearing€in€this€situation€calls€for€aÏcareful€exercise€of€discretion€on€the€part€of€the€appellate€practitioner,€with€perhaps€someÏinput€from€your€project€buddy€or€other€colleagues.€€If€you€think€there€is€a€ð ðreasonableÏpossibilityðð€of€an€improvement€in€the€result,€ask€for€rehearing.€€If€you€think€there€is€not,Ïdonððt€waste€your€time.€€If€itððs€a€close€call,€draft€and€file€the€rehearing€petition.€€You€will€needÏto€make€the€same€points€in€your€review€petition,€and€you€might€as€well€not€use€up€the€€scantÏten€hours€provided€for€such€petitions€in€the€compensation€€guidelines.Ìà  àA€recent€example€of€such€a€petition€being€successfully€brought€in€the€CaliforniaÏSupreme€Court€is€òòPeople€v.€Dominguezóó€(2007)€39€Cal.€4th€1141,€in€which€my€colleagueÐ 6#†) ÐDallas€Sacher€pointed€out€in€the€rehearing€petition€the€erroneousness€of€the€Courtððs€findingÏthat€an€instructional€error€issue€was€defaulted€for€failure€to€argue€it€in€the€Court€of€Appeal.€ÏOn€rehearing,€the€Court€removed€this€erroneous€conclusion€from€its€opinion,€which€hasÏsaved€Dallas€the€problem€of€having€to€deal€with€a€bogus€finding€of€procedural€default.ÌñšñÓ€€Óñšññ™ñÌñ™ññšñÓ€€LFÓñšññšñÓ€€ÓñšñÌñšñÓ€€¹FÓñšñà  àD.€€ò òTelling€the€Court€of€Appeal€How€Badly€Theyððve€Botched€the€Case€andÐ 6+†&4 ÐOffended€Basic€Principles€of€Due€Processó ó.€€The€fourth€category€of€rehearing€petition€isÐ ¼, (6 Ðthe€one€we€always€òòwantóó€to€write,€but€almost€never€should.€€No€meaningful€advantage€to€yourÐ ° Ðclient€can€be€obtained€from€using€a€rehearing€petition€as€a€way€of€venting€your€frustrationÏregarding€slimy€analysis€and€skewed€presentations€of€the€facts€where€there€is€no€reasonableÏpossibility€of€a€better€result.€€It€will€not€result€in€rehearing€being€granted;€it€could€well€leadÏto€a€diminution€of€your€reputation€with€the€members€of€the€court,€and/or€their€law€clerks,€andÏthus€prejudice€your€future€clients;€and€it€does€nothing€to€advance€your€clientððs€case€in€anyÏfuture€review€in€state€or€federal€court.€€Ìà  àHaving€made€that€pronouncement,€I€have€to€admit€that€I€will€sometimes€file€rehearingÏpetitions€as€much€for€the€ð ðpoliticalðð€purpose€of€ð ðspeaking€truth€to€power,ðð€as€for€any€of€theÏother€above„noted€reasons.€€But€when€I€do€so,€I€try€very€hard€to€package€the€petition€in€oneÏor€more€of€the€other€three€categories€described€above,€and€to€carefully€watch€the€tone€of€myÏprose€so€as€to€reduce€any€perception€of€offensiveness.€€If€you€are€really€venting€your€spleenÏin€a€rehearing€petition,€get€a€colleague€or€appellate€project€buddy€to€ððvetðð€the€petition€beforeÏfiling€it,€and€try€to€avoid€phrases€like€ð ðintellectually€dishonestðð€and€ð ðgallingðð€(both€of€whichÏwere€vetted€out€of€my€own€rehearing€petitions€at€one€time€or€another).ÌÓff€ÓÌÓ€ffEMÓà  àE.€€ò òOops,€I€Forgot€an€Issue!ó ó€€Did€I€say€there€were€four€categories€of€rehearingÐ –æ Ðpetitions?€€Actually,€hereððs€a€suggestion€for€a€fifth€one€which€you€should€take€with€a€grainÏof€salt,€and€only€then€as€a€last€resort.€€Ìà  àYes,€it€does€happen€that€you€realize€only€after€you€read€the€opinion€that€you€forgotÏto€brief€an€issue,€or€an€aspect€of€an€issue.€€One€fairly€common€example€is€where€the€AGÏraises€a€procedural€default€issue€which€you€think€is€absolutely€laughable,€and€which€youÏdemolish€in€your€reply€brief.€€And€then,€stunningly,€the€Court€of€Appeal€relies€on€that€flimsyÏgarment€of€procedural€default€to€cover€up€your€winning€issue€and€find€it€forfeited.€€YouÏdidnððt€bother€to€brief€a€backup€argument€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€(IAC)€becauseÏit€seemed€entirely€unnecessary€and€absurd,€but€now€itððs€the€only€way€to€preserve€your€issue,Ïother€than€to€challenge€the€procedural€ruling€in€a€petition€for€review€and€pray€for€a€miracle.€ÏCan€anything€be€done€on€rehearing€to€rescue€your€clientððs€winning€issue?€Ð ,l'5 Ðà  àThe€bad€news€is€that€the€general€rule€precludes€raising€a€point€of€law,€issue€or€sub„¼issue€for€the€first€time€on€petition€for€rehearing,€and€courts€€will€routinely€refuse€to€considerÏissues€raised€in€this€manner.€(òòMounts€v.€Uyedaóó€(1991)€227€Cal.App.3d€111,€121;€òòCounty€ofÐ ° ÐSacramento€v.€Loebóó€(1984)€160€Cal.App.3d€446,€459,€fn.€5.)׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€However,€where€good€causeÐ 0 € Ðappears€for€the€considera‚tion€of€such€new€matters,€a€court€has€discretion€to€do€so€for€the€firstÏtime€on€a€petition€for€rehearing.€(òòMounts€v.€Uyedaóó,€òòsupraóó,€at€p.€121;€òòHunt€v.€County€ofÐ 0 €  ÐShastaóó€(1990)€225€Cal.App.3d€432,€446,€fn.€12.)€€Ð °  Ðà  àIf€you€find€yourself€in€this€position,€raise€the€claim€for€the€first€time€in€a€rehearingÏpetition,€citing€the€above€authority,€and€asking€the€court€to€treat€the€petition€as€aÏsupplemental€brief.€€You€will€have€to€explain€why€it€is€that€you€failed€to€brief€the€issue,€e.g.,Ïthere€was€a€novel€point€of€law€which€was€not€foreseeable,€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€forÏfailing€to€raise€and€preserve€the€issue,€you€were€ineffective€for€not€raising€the€IAC€claim€inÏyour€briefing,€the€AG€put€a€voodoo€hex€on€you,€etc.€€Ìà  àOf€course,€except€in€unusual€situations€involving€very€recent€landmark€decisionsÏ(e.g.,€òòCunninghamóó,€òòCrawfordóó),€it€is€quite€rare€for€a€Court€of€Appeal€to€grant€such€a€rehearingÐ ° Ðpetition.€€If€they€do€grant€it,€you€are€in€fine€shape,€and€the€issue€will€hopefully€get€a€rulingÏon€the€merits.€€In€the€normal€circumstance,€the€court€will€simply€deny€the€rehearing€petition.€ÏThe€trick€is€to€then€present€the€issue€in€your€review€petition,€again€citing€the€above€authority.€ÏWhen€the€Supreme€Court€denies€the€petition€on€its€merits,€you€have€then,€arguably,€raisedÏand€preserved€the€issue€for€federal€habeas€review,€either€because€it€was€decided€on€theÏmerits,€or€because€the€procedural€rule€described€in€cases€like€òòMountsóó€is€not€one€which€isÐ °"( Ðconsistently€applied.€(See€òòWells€v.€Maassóó,€òòsupraóó,€28€F.3d€at€p.€1010.)Ð 0$€* Ðà  àI€have€to€conclude€with€a€caveat.€€This€method€is€not€tried€and€true,€and€is€notÏfoolproof,€as€it€leaves€a€chance€that€either€the€Court€of€Appeal€or€the€Supreme€Court€willÏfind€the€òònewóó€issue€(IAC€in€my€hypothetical)€procedurally€defaulted,€and€creates€a€basis,€evenÐ °($0 Ðif€they€donððt,€for€the€government€to€argue€on€federal€habeas€that€the€issue€was€defaultedÏunder€an€independent€and€adequate€state€ground.€€The€only€foolproof€way€to€preserve€suchÏan€issue€is€by€a€ð ðfall„on„your„swordðð€habeas€petition,€which€raises€the€issue€by€means€of€anÏallegation€of€ineffective€assistance€of€appellate€counsel.€€To€be€on€the€safe€side,€it€probablyÏmakes€the€most€sense€to€do€both.ÌÓ€€ÓÌÓ€€>]ÓII.à  àò òREVIEW€PETITIONS€REVIEWEDÐ °   Ðó óà  àThe€most€sensible€way€to€think€about€petitions€for€review€is€to€break€them€up€into€twoÐ 6†  Ðsometimes€overlapping€categories:€ÌÓb€ (b«x3bÓÝ ‚3£ ÝÝ  ÝÝ‚3£¦^ÝÔ2b«Ôð`ðÔ3  Ôà0  àÝ  ÝCases€which€involve€an€issue€or€issues€which€have€some€meaningful€chance€to€leadÐ 6†  Ðto€a€grant€of€review€by€the€supreme€court€which€could€be€beneficial€to€your€client,Ïreferred€to€herein€by€the€shorthand€phrase€ð ðreview„worthy€issuesðð;€and݃3£¦^Ñ^݌Р(#(# ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ ‚3£ ÝÝ  ÝÝ‚3£W`ÝÔ2b«Ôð`ðÔ3  Ôà0  àÝ  ÝCases€where€a€review€petition€is€necessary€to€exhaust€a€federal€constitutional€claimÐ ¶ Ðin€order€to€present€the€claim€in€a€federal€habeas€petition€(or,€more€rarely,€in€a€cert.Ïpetition).݃3£W`‚`݌Р(#(# ÐŒÝ  Ýà  àDifferent€strategies,€argumentative€styles,€and€goals€apply€to€these€two€different€typesÏof€petitions,€and€thus€they€are€discussed€under€separate€headings.€€Bear€in€mind,€though,€thatÏthe€categories€will€often€overlap€in€that€issues€which€are€potentially€review„worthy€oftenÏinvolve€federal€constitutional€error.€In€such€cases,€you€will€need€to€pay€attention€to€both€setsÏof€concerns€discussed€below.ÌÓ€€ÓÌÓ€€kcÓà  àA.€€ò òReview„Worthy€Issuesó ó.€€The€grounds€for€granting€review€are€set€forth€in€RuleÐ 6"†( Ð8.500(b).€€Of€the€four€grounds€cited€in€that€rule,€we€normally€need€concern€ourselves€onlyÏwith€subdivision€(1),€which€provides,€ð ðthe€Supreme€Court€may€order€review€of€a€Court€ofÏAppeal€decision€.€.€.€[w]hen€necessary€to€secure€uniformity€of€decision€or€to€settle€anÏimportant€question€of€law.€.€.€.ðð€€Ìà  àEmphasis€and€most€work€should€always€be€in€those€cases€where€you€reasonablyÏbelieve€you€have€a€ð ðreview„worthyðð€issue,€one€that€involves€a€novel€question€of€legalÏinterpretation,€or€which€involves€conflict€within€the€Courts€of€Appeal.€€Itððs€hard€toÐ ¼, (6 Ðgeneralize€as€to€what€kinds€of€cases€are€most€likely€to€lead€to€a€grant€of€review.€Here€areÏsome€suggested€categories€of€cases€where€a€petition€for€review€has€a€somewhat€betterÏlikelihood€of€being€granted.ÌÓb€ (b«xxbÓÝ ‚3£ ÝÝ  ÝÝ‚3£‘gÝÔ2b«Ôð`ðÔ3  Ôà0  àÝ  ÝCases€involving€statutory€or€constitutional€interpretation€of€new€statutes€or€initiativeÐ 0 € Ðmeasures,€or€of€statutes€that€have€proven€over€the€years€to€be€thorny€to€figure€out€forÏappellate€courts,€or€even€the€Supreme€Court€itself.݃3£‘g¼g݌Р(#(# ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ ‚3£ ÝÝ  ÝÝ‚3£5iÝÔ2b«Ôð`ðÔ3  Ôà0  àÝ  ÝCases€with€issues€that€include€the€ð ðecho„effectsðð€of€landmark€opinions€or€changes€inÐ °  Ðthe€law,€e.g.,€òòpost„Crawfordóó,€òòpost„Cunninghamóó€cases,€typically€nasty€criminal€lawÐ 0€  Ðinitiatives.݃3£5i`i݌Р(#(# ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ ‚3£ ÝÝ  ÝÝ‚3£ÎjÝÔ2b«Ôð`ðÔ3  Ôà0  àÝ  ÝAny€case€with€a€published€opinion€on€a€novel€or€hotly€disputed€issue€of€law,Ð 0€  Ðespecially€if€there€was€a€dissent€in€the€Court€of€Appeal.݃3£Îjùj݌Р(#(# ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ ‚3£ ÝÝ  ÝÝ‚3£lÝÔ2b«Ôð`ðÔ3  Ôà0  àÝ  ÝAGððs€petitions;€i.e.,€cases€where€òòyou€óóhave€won€in€the€Court€of€Appeal,€published€orÐ 0€ Ðunpublished.€€(These€donððt€really€fit€the€topic,€but€you€are€most€likely€to€get€a€chanceÏto€argue€ð!ð€and,€unfortunately€too€often,€lose€ð!ð€in€the€Supreme€Court€in€such€a€case.)݃3£l?l݌Р(#(# ÐŒÝ  Ýà  àòòCaveatóó:€Cases€in€which€review€is€actually€granted€are€as€varied€as€they€are€rare;€theÐ ° Ðonly€real€measure€is€the€vote€of€four€justices€ð!ð€i.e.,€a€majority€of€the€Supreme€Court.€€KeepÏin€mind€that€you€may€have€a€great€issue€where€review€is€denied€not€because€the€Court€isnððtÏinterested€in€the€issue,€but€just€because€yours€might€not€be€the€ð ðrightðð€case€in€terms€of€theÏfacts€or€law.ÌÓ€€ÓÌÓ€€•oÓà  àB.€€ò òRaising€and€Preserving€Federal€Constitutional€Error€for€Collateral€Review.€Ð °!' Ðó óThe€second€principal€reason€for€filing€a€review€petition€is€to€preserve€an€issue€for€collateralÐ 6#†) Ðreview€by€means€of€a€federal€habeas€petition.€Both€federal€statute€and€case€law€contain€anÏð ðexhaustionðð€requirement,€which€means€that€as€a€prerequisite€to€obtaining€federal€habeasÏreview,€an€issue€must€be€presented€to€the€stateððs€highest€court,€even€when,€as€in€California,Ïactual€review€by€such€a€court€is€discretionary.€(òòO'Sullivan€v.€Boerckelóó€(1999)€526€U.S.€838,Ð 6)†$1 Ðâ â844„845.)€€In€California,€this€almost€always€means€a€petition€for€review.€(òòGatlin€v.€MaddingóóÐ ¶*&3 Ð(9th€Cir.€1999)€189€F.3d€882,€888.)׃P×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð ° Ðâ âà  àRecently,€the€Judicial€Council€rules€were€amended€to€provide€for€a€hybridÏð ðexhaustion€petitionðð€whose€sole€function€is€to€preserve€an€issue€for€federal€review.€(RuleÏ8.508.)€€The€question€whether€to€present€your€exhaustion€petition€under€the€aegis€of€this€ruleÏor€as€a€regular„old€review€petition€will€be€addressed€in€Part€II„E„1€below.€€Ìà  àBefore€embarking€on€one€or€the€other€form€of€exhaustion€petition,€a€couple€of€factorsÏneed€to€be€considered.€€First,€ask€yourself€whether€the€issue€or€issues€are€truly€federalÏconstitutional€in€scope,€i.e.,€whether€the€key€determination€of€the€issue€depends€on€anÏinterpretation€of€state€law€or€federal€constitutional€law.€€As€an€example,€consider€one€of€myÏpet€issues€(which€has€so€far€gone€nowhere),€in€which€I€argue€that€the€ð ðfearðð€element€of€theÏcrime€of€robbery€includes€an€objective€as€well€as€subjective€component,€as€it€does€in€theÏsimilar€crime€of€rape.€(See€òòPeople€v.€Iniguezóó€Ô‡ Šã¸‹‹Šã¸Ô(1994)€7€Cal.4th€847.)€€Where€the€Court€ofÐ 0€ ÐAppeal€rejects€my€claims€of€sufficiency€and/or€instructional€error€on€an€element€of€theÏoffense€ð!ð€both€of€which€are€federal€constitutional€claims€(see€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó€(1979)€443Ð 0€ ÐU.S.€307€and€òòEstelleóó€òòv.€McGuireóó€(1991)€502€U.S.€62,€69)Ô#†Šã¸‹‹ Šã¸w#ÔÔ‡ Šã¸‹‹Šã¸Ô€ð!ð€is€there€really€a€federalÐ ° Ðconstitutional€issue€worth€preserving€and€seeking€federal€habeas€relief?€€The€answer,Ïunfortunately,€is€probably€ð ðno.ðð€€Itððs€well€settled€that€it€is€a€matter€of€state€law€to€describeÏand€interpret€the€elements€of€a€crime.€(See,€e.g.,€Ô#†Šã¸‹‹ Š㸮x#ÔòòMartin€v.€Ohioóó€(1987)€480€U.S.€228,€232,Ð 0€" ÐòòPatterson€v.€New€Yorkóó€(1977)€432€U.S.€197,€211.)€€Thus,€an€issue€such€as€this,€whichÐ °$ Ðnominally€involves€federal€constitutional€rights€(sufficiency€of€evidence€and€instructions€onÏelements€of€the€crime),€but€is€decided€based€on€a€pure€interpretation€of€state€law,€is€oneÏwhere€your€client€is€almost€certain€to€lose€in€federal€court€based€upon€an€independent€andÏadequate€state€law€basis€for€the€ruling.Ìà  àSecond,€you€need€to€figure€out€whether€your€client€and€his€punishment€fits€within€theÏcategory€of€persons€who€could€obtain€actual€benefit€from€collateral€review.€€Federal€habeasÐ °($0 Ðrelief€is€limited€to€persons€ð ðin€state€custody,ðð€which€means€either€actual€physical€custody€ofÏthe€state,€or€constructive€custody€such€as€parole€or€probation.€(òòJones€v.€Cunninghamóó€(1963)Ð 0€ Ð371€U.S.€236,€240;€see€also€òòMiranda€v.€Renoóó€(9th€Cir.€2001)€238€F.3d€1156,€1158Ð ° Ð[summarizing€expanded€meaning€of€ð ðcustodyðð€for€purposes€of€federal€habeas€statutes].)€€ForÏthose€of€you€who€have€not€handled€a€federal€habeas€claim,€it€is€not€unusual€for€such€a€claimÏto€take€three€to€six€years€to€get€a€final€result.€€While€federal€habeas€procedure€permits€aÏpetition€to€continue€until€judgment€where€a€petitioner€is€out€of€custody,€provided€that€he€wasÏin€custody€when€the€petition€was€filed€(òòMaleng€v.€Cookóó€(1989)€490€U.S.€488,€491-92),€youÐ 0€  Ðshould€consider€whether€your€client€will€be€subject€to€significant€legal€or€collateral€restraintsÏif€and€when€federal€habeas€relief€could€be€obtained,€and€thus€whether€he€will€get€any€kindÏof€meaningful€relief€from€a€federal€habeas€win.€€Keep€in€mind,€though,€that€even€if€there€isÏno€longer€any€custodial€restraint€from€a€conviction,€most€clients€would€be€pleased€to€haveÏa€criminal€conviction€removed€from€their€record,€especially€considering€the€potentialÏcollateral€consequences€which€such€a€conviction€can€have€on€their€lives.ÌÓ€€ÓÌÓ€€‚Óà  àC.€€ò òStrategies€For€Drafting€Review€Petitions.ó óÐ 0€ Ðà  à1.€€ò òThe€Requisites€of€a€Proper€Review€Petitionó ó.€€Rule€8.504€sets€forth€the€technicalÐ ¶ Ðrequirements€for€a€petition€for€review.€€As€a€general€matter,€the€rule€requires€that€reviewÏpetitions€comply€with€the€requirements€for€briefs€set€forth€in€Rule€8.204€(Rule€8.504(a).)ÏThis€means€that€review€petitions€must€include€tables€of€contents€and€authorities,€separatedÏheadings€and€subheadings€of€arguments,€a€statement€of€the€case€and€facts,€and€otherwiseÏcomply€with€the€ð ðformðð€requirements€of€Rule€8.204(b).€€Ìà  àCareful€attention€must€be€paid€to€the€following€òòspecific€óórequirements€for€a€reviewÐ ¼$ + Ðpetition€set€forth€in€the€remaining€parts€of€Rule€8.504.€€Ìà  àa.€€ò òTimelinessó ó.€€A€review€petition€must€be€filed€ð ðwithin€ten€days€after€the€Court€ofÐ ¼' #/ ÐAppeal€decision€is€final.€.€.€.ðð€(Rule€8.504(e)(1).)€€Since€a€Court€of€Appeal€decision€in€anÏappeal€is€final€after€thirty€days,€the€petition€should€be€filed€between€the€31st€and€40th€dayÏafter€the€opinion.€€However,€the€petition€can€actually€be€submitted€to€the€Supreme€Court€forÐ B,’'5 Ðfiling€before€the€date€of€finality.€(Rule€8.504(e)(2).)€€Keep€in€mind€that€the€due€date€for€aÏreview€petition€is€a€ð ðguillotineðð€rule:€a€review€petition€will€not€be€accepted€for€filing€whenÏit€is€late,€and€an€untimely€filing€will€forfeit€both€any€chance€of€review€being€granted€andÏyour€clientððs€exhaustion€of€federal€constitutional€issues.€€The€sole€exception€is€a€sub„ruleÏpermitting€a€party€to€ask€the€Chief€Justice€to€grant€relief€from€default€within€the€sixty€dayÏperiod€during€which€the€court€can€grant€review€on€its€own€motion.€€(Rule€8.504(e)(2).)€€InÏpractice,€such€requests€appear€to€be€routinely€denied€when€they€are€based€on€any€form€ofÏinexcusable€neglect€of€counsel.€€Dire€emergencies€(death€or€hospitalization€of€counsel€orÏloved€one,€etc.)€have€led€to€relief€under€this€rule,€but€hardly€anything€else.Ìà  àOn€a€few€occasions,€we€have€been€able€to€get€around€an€attorneyððs€neglectful€failureÏto€file€a€timely€review€petition€by€drafting€the€motion€and€petition€òòin€propria€personaóó€by€theÐ ° Ðclient,€and€including€a€declaration€indicating€that€the€client€was€relying€in€good€faith€on€theÏattorneyððs€promise€to€file€a€timely€review€petition.€€Even€here,€the€results€have€been€spotty.€ÏThe€only€other€way€to€recover€from€a€failure€to€file€a€timely€review€petition€is€to€prepare€aÏpro€per€original€habeas€petition€on€behalf€of€the€client€based€on€ineffective€assistance€ofÏcounsel€in€failing€to€file€a€timely€review€petition.€€However,€the€risks€here€are€considerable,Ïsince€the€U.S.€Supreme€Court€has€held€that€there€is€no€federal€constitutional€right€to€counselÏwith€respect€to€the€filing€of€a€discretionary€petition€on€appeal€to€the€stateððs€highest€court,€andÏat€least€arguably€under€federal€law€no€right€to€the€effective€assistance€of€counsel€as€to€suchÏa€petition.€(òòPennsylvania€v.€Finleyóó€(1987)€481€U.S.€551,€555„556.)Ð 0!€& Ðà  àIt€is€thus€obvious€that€the€only€viable€course€is€to€file€a€timely€review€petition€onÏbehalf€of€your€client.ÌÓ€€ÓÌÓ€€ Óà  àb.€€ò òWord€Lengthó ó.€€There€used€to€be€a€thirty€page€limit€to€review€petitions.€€I€couldÐ 0&€!- Ðlive€with€this€limit€because€I€use€1.5€line€spacing,€and€the€old€rules€allowed€you€to€get€awayÏwith€using€smaller€typefaces.€€Now€there€is€a€word€limit€of€8400€words€(Rule€8.504(d)(1)),Ïwhich€is€a€bit€more€than€a€third€the€length€allowed€for€an€opening€brief.€€As€I€write€a€brief,Ïthis€ends€up€being€shorter€than€30€pages.€€For€double„spacers,€however,€this€gives€you€aÐ 6,†'5 Ðpetition€that€is€considerably€longer€than€30€pages.€€The€rule€permits€a€longer€petition€onÏapplication€to€the€Chief€Justice,€but€here€too€such€a€request€is€frequently€denied.€€The€goodÏnews€is€that€if€it€is€denied,€the€Court€will€give€you€ten€days€to€file€a€conforming€petition.€€Ìà  àProblems€with€word€length€often€arise€in€cases€involving€numerous€issues€withÏfederal€constitutional€claims€that€have€to€be€preserved,€particularly€where€the€petition€alsoÏinvolves€one€or€more€review„worthy€issues.€€My€best€advice€is€to€draft€the€petition€asÏconcisely€as€possible,€from€beginning€to€end.€€When€your€draft€if€finished,€and€you€are€overÏthe€word€limit,€read€it€through€with€the€idea€of€paring€it€down€and€eliminating€unnecessaryÏor€repetitive€passages.€€One€trick€employed€routinely€by€many€practitioners,€including€thisÏwriter,€is€to€not€include€Statements€of€the€Case€or€Facts,€but€to€simply€state,€under€theÏheading€of€ð ðStatements€of€the€Case€and€Facts,ðð€the€following€phrase:€Ìà8  àð ðÔ‡ Šã¸‹‹Šã¸ÔÔ‡ ˆÈ ˆ‹ Šã¸ÔExcept€as€otherwise€noted€herein,€appellant€adopts€the€statement€of€the€caseÐ 0€ Ðand€facts€in€the€opinion€of€the€court€of€appeal.€(Slip€opin.,€pp.€1„__.)ððÐ Ð Ð  ÐThis€can€pare€many€pages/words€off€your€petition,€and€allows€you€to€deal€with€distortionsÏand€omissions€in€the€Court€of€Appeal€opinion€in€the€body€of€your€arguments.ÌÓ€€ÓÔ#†ˆÈ ˆ ˆ ˆÈ*•#ÔÔ#†Šã¸‹ ˆˆÈI•#ÔÌÓ€€Ò–Óà  àc.€€ò òStatement€of€Issues€for€Reviewó ó€€€Perhaps€the€most€important€specific€requirementÐ ° Ðfor€review€petitions€is€a€brief€description€of€the€issues€presented,€which€is€aptly€describedÏin€the€rule:€ÌÓ33€Óà8  àð ðThe€body€of€the€petition€must€begin€with€a€concise,€nonargumentativeÏstatement€of€the€issues€presented€for€review,€framing€them€in€terms€of€theÏfacts€of€the€case€but€without€unnecessary€detail.ððÐ Ð Ð  ÐÓ€33(˜ÓÓ€€ÓÌÓ€€<™ÓÓ33Qw€Ó(Rule€8504(b)(1).)€€ÌÓ€33e™ÓÓÌL€ÓÌÓ€ÌL¦™Óà  àMy€own€practice€has€always€been€to€draft€the€issue€statement€first,€before€writing€theÏrest€of€the€petition.€€This€helps€me€to€focus€and€frame€the€argument.€€I€work€on€it,€sometimesÏfor€hours,€trying€to€make€it€catchy,€clear,€precise,€and€yet€specific€enough€to€lay€out€the€factsÏthat€matter€in€the€case.€€Then,€after€Iððve€put€together€a€draft€of€the€rest€of€the€petition,€I€willÏgo€back€to€the€statement€of€issues€and€rework€it€if€needed,€since€the€focus€of€arguments€canÏoften€change€in€the€course€of€writing€a€review€petition.Ð N-ž(5 Ðà  àFor€reasons€obscured€by€time,€I€have€always€framed€the€ð ðstatement€of€the€issuesððinÏthe€form€of€ð ðQuestion[s]€Presented€for€Review.ðð€€Some€years€ago,€I€was€surprised€to€learnÏthat€the€ð ðquestionðð€format€was€not€required,€but€kept€doing€it€in€most€cases€out€of€habit.€€TheÏð ðquestionðð€format€seems€to€give€broad€latitude€for€a€precise€framing€of€what€is€before€theÏcourt.€€It€can€also€provide€you€a€way,€in€the€more€mundane€case€with€little€chance€of€aÏreview€grant,€of€simply€rephrasing€your€issue€headnote€as€a€question€so€that€it€doesnððt€seemÏrepetitive€when€you€say€it€again€in€the€brief€portion€of€the€argument.€€And,€it€provides€goodÏpractice€in€case€you€decide€to€become€a€contestant€on€ð ðJeopardyðð€[double€or€otherwise].Ìà  àSome€sample€ð ðQuestions€for€Reviewðð€are€included€as€Appendix€A.€€You€will€noteÏthat€some€issue€statements€are€short€and€sweet,€otherwise€full€of€more€detail€and€complexity.€ÏKeep€in€mind€while€drafting€your€Statement€of€Issues€that€the€quality€and€clarity€of€this€partÏof€the€petition€may€well€be€critical.€€In€a€recent€FDAP€seminar,€a€Supreme€Court€staff€clerkÏdescribed€the€Courtððs€internal€process€of€dividing€up€review€petitions€into€an€ð ðAðð€list€andÏa€ð ðBðð€list,€with€the€former€cases€actually€presented€to€the€justices€for€specific€consideration,Ïand€the€latter€ð ðBðð€cases€essentially€denied€after€staff€review.€€The€quality€and€care€you€putÏinto€setting€for€the€Statement€of€Issues€may€well€be€decisive€in€terms€of€putting€your€clientððsÏcase€into€the€ð ðAðð€list.ÌÓ€€ÓÌÓ€€0¢Óà  àd.€€ò òReasons€for€Granting€Reviewó ó.€€A€second€requirement€unique€to€the€petition€forÐ °# Ðreview€is€stated€in€Rule€8.504(b)(2):€Ìà8  àð ðThe€petition€must€explain€how€the€case€presents€a€ground€for€review€underÏrule€8.500(b).ðð€€Ð Ð Ð  ÐIn€many€review€petitions€which€Iððve€seen,€this€requirement€is€complied€with€simply€byÏstating€that€the€described€issue€is€ð ðnecessary€to€settle€an€important€question€of€law,€and€byÏciting€Rule€8.500(b)(1).€€This€is€almost€certainly€insufficient.Ìà  àThe€better€practice,€followed€by€most€appellate€practitioners,€is€to€create€a€secondÏsection€after€the€Statement€of€Issues€which€is€entitled€ð ðReasons€for€Granting€Review,ðð€orÏsomething€similar,€and€then€laying€out,€as€clearly€as€possible,€the€reasons€why€the€caseÐ 6,†'5 Ðinvolves€an€important€statewide€issue€of€law€or€involves€a€split€of€authority€within€theÏCourts€of€Appeal.€€Ìà  àCrafting€an€effective€ð ðReasons€for€Reviewðð€section€requires€focus€on€the€legalÏunderpinnings€of€the€argument,€situating€it,€when€possible,€in€a€sequence€of€pertinent€priorÏcourt€decisions€and/or€legislative€enactments,€and€critically€taking€apart,€at€least€in€outlineÏform,€the€Court€of€Appeal€opinion.€€€If€the€opinion€on€appeal€is€published,€emphasize€theÏharm€from€the€misinterpretation€or€obfuscation€in€the€opinion;€if€it€is€unpublished,€stress€theÏextent€to€which€it€does€not€take€seriously€enough€the€importance€of€the€issue€and€the€needÏfor€clear€guidance€from€the€Supreme€Court.€€Ìà  àThe€ð ðReasons€for€Reviewðð€should€be€kept€fairly€short.€€If€youððve€written€a€strongÏð ðSummary€of€Argumentðð€as€an€introduction€to€your€issue€in€the€opening€brief,€this€can€oftenÏprovide€a€good€starting€point€for€drafting€the€reasons€for€review.€€€Where€the€primaryÏpurpose€of€the€review€petition,€or€of€the€inclusion€of€particular€issues€in€a€petition,€is€toÏexhaust€federal€constitutional€claims,€little€more€need€be€said€than€that€exhaustion€isÏrequired,€citing€the€federal€case€law€to€this€effect.Ìà  àA€few€sample€ð ðReasons€for€Reviewðð€excerpted€from€review€petitions€are€providedÏin€Appendix€B.ÌÓ€€ÓÌÓ€€ïªÓà  àD.€€ò òSome€Suggestions€for€Drafting€Petitions€in€ð ðReview„Worthyðð€Cases.ó óÐ °# Ðà  à1.€€ò òFind€a€Hookó ó.€€No,€not€for€use€on€the€author€of€the€Court€of€Appeal€opinion.€€TheÐ 6 †% Ðidea€here€is€to€come€up€with€a€fresh€take€on€your€issue€that€makes€it€just€the€sort€on€whichÏthe€Court€will€want€to€grant€review.€€A€rehash€of€your€Court€of€Appeal€briefs€will€not€do€it.€ÏÌà  àSometimes€it€isnððt€hard€to€find€the€hook,€as€the€issue€itself€will€be€hook€enough.€€ForÏexample,€in€the€òòPeople€v.€Mendozaóó€case€(my€only€win€in€the€Supreme€Court),€the€hook€wasÐ ¼' #/ Ða€divided€Court€of€Appeal€in€a€published€case€ruling€that€the€mental€state€for€aiding€andÏabetting€was€general€intent,€and€that€intoxication€evidence€was€not€admissible€under€PenalÏCode€section€22(b)€to€negate€such€a€mental€state.€€My€goal€in€the€review€petition€in€that€caseÐ <,Œ'5 Ðwas€to€clearly€present€the€issue,€laying€out€the€pertinent€decisions€of€the€Supreme€CourtÏwhich€suggested€that€the€dissenter€correctly€found€that€aiding€and€abetting€required€aÏspecific€intent,€and€using€the€analysis€of€Justice€Miharaððs€dissenting€opinion€to€goodÏadvantage.Ìà  àIn€other€cases,€the€ð ðreview€worthinessðð€of€the€issue€will€not€be€obvious,€and€it€is€yourÏjob€to€persuade€the€screening€clerks€and€justices€that€the€issue€really€is€one€of€statewideÏsignificance.€€When,€as€is€most€commonly€the€case,€the€opinion€is€unpublished€and€there€isÏno€dissenting€opinion,€the€uphill€fight€is€to€demonstrate€why€the€issue€really€matters.€ÏEmphasize€the€frequency€of€the€legal€and€factual€predicament€that€gave€rise€to€the€issue€inÏyour€case,€the€novelty€and€significance€of€the€issue€presented,€and€the€need€for€guidanceÏfrom€the€stateððs€highest€court€based€on€apparent€conflicts€in€the€case€law.€€Ìà  àAt€the€same€time,€beware€of€saying€too€much€about€the€novelty€of€the€issue;€yourÏwords€may€come€back€to€haunt€you€or€your€client€in€a€later€federal€habeas€petition€afterÏreview€is€denied€where€you€are€seeking€to€show€that€the€Court€of€Appeal€unreasonablyÏinterpreted€federal€constitutional€law.€€If€the€issue€is€truly€novel,€itððs€harder€to€maintain€thatÏthe€Court€of€Appeal€decision€was€ð ðcontrary€to€or€an€unreasonable€application€ofðð€settledÏconstitutional€law.ÌÓ€€ÓÌÓ€€?´Óà  à2.€€ò òDonððt€Expend€Too€Much€Energy€Discussing€How€Your€Client€Got€ð ðSlimedððÐ °# Ðby€the€Court€of€Appeal€Opinionó ó.€€I€have€to€begin€this€section€with€a€little€story.€€About€20Ð 6 †% Ðyears€ago€or€so,€well€before€I€went€to€work€as€a€Staff€Attorney€for€SDAP,€I€was€attendingÏan€appellate€seminar€at€which€a€lead€attorney€on€the€Supreme€Courtððs€Central€Staff€wasÏgiving€a€presentation€on€petitions€for€review.€€Although€his€name€escapes€me,€I€recall€thatÏhe€was€a€former€State€Public€Defender€back€in€the€heyday€of€that€office€in€the€late€1970s.€ÏHis€presentation€laid€out€all€the€types€of€cases€which€were€likely€to€lead€to€a€grant€of€review,Ïand€gave€some€tips€about€how€to€package€issues€to€the€court.€€Following€his€presentation,ÏI€raised€my€hand€from€the€top€of€the€seminar€room€and€asked€him€what€he€would€suggest€weÏcan€do€to€obtain€review€when€the€Court€of€Appeal€opinion€distorts€the€facts,€miscasts€theÐ <,Œ'5 Ðlegal€arguments€presented,€ignores€federal€constitutional€claims,€and€generally€obfuscatesÏthe€issues€on€the€way€to€affirming.€€ð ðDid€everyone€hear€the€question?ðð€he€said€to€theÏaudience.€€When€many€said€ð ðNo,ðð€he€spoke€up:€ð ðThe€question€is,€what€do€you€do€when€youÏget€slimed€by€the€Court€of€Appeal.ðð€€His€answer,€as€I€recall,€was€that€you€should€get€over€itÏand€try€to€package€the€issue€as€one€which€is€worthy€of€review.Ìà  àGenerally€speaking,€this€is€wise€advice.€€Itððs€the€issue,€and€not€its€mishandling€by€theÏCourt€of€Appeal,€which€will€attract€the€Supreme€Courtððs€attention.€€This€follows€from€theÏnature€of€the€Court€as€one€of€limited€jurisdiction€which€sits€not€to€review€and€correct€badÏdecisions€by€the€lower€appellate€courts,€but€to€decide€legal€issues€of€statewide€importance.€ÏAt€best,€all€the€Supreme€Court€can€do€with€a€poorly€reasoned€and€analyzed€opinion€of€theÏCourt€of€Appeal€is€to€depublish€it.€€So€channel€your€energy€into€finding€a€good€hook,Ïshowing€how€the€issue€is€one€that€is€or€will€be€vexing€the€courts,€and€why€your€take€on€theÏissue€interprets€the€law€in€the€manner€it€is€supposed€to€be€interpreted€under€the€case€law€ofÏthe€state€and/or€federal€Supreme€Courts.Ìà  àThat€said,€donððt€entirely€shy€away€from€the€sins€and€omissions€in€the€Court€of€AppealÏopinion.€€Explaining€how€they€botched€it€is€a€part€of€your€argument€as€to€why€the€issue€isÏimportant€to€your€client€and€others,€and€how€a€correct€analysis€or€interpretation€of€the€issueÏshould€go.€€Plus,€as€explained€in€the€ð ðððExhausting€Federal€Habeas€Claimsðð€section€below,Ïlaying€out€the€negative€factors€about€the€Court€of€Appealððs€opinion€is€a€crucial€part€of€theÏfederal€habeas€argument€that€this€ð ðlast€reasoned€decisionðð€was€either€Ô‡ˆÈ ˆ‹Šã¸Ôð ðcontrary€toðð€or€ð ðanÐ 0!€& Ðunreasonable€applicationðð€of€federal€constitutional€law.Ô#†Šã¸‹ ˆˆÈ4¿#ÔÐ °"( ÐÓ€€ÓÌÓ€€ø¿Óà  àE.€€ò òRaising€and€Preserving€Federal€Constitutional€Issues.€€ó óAs€explained€above,Ð °$ + Ða€petition€for€review€must€be€filed€to€properly€exhaust€state€court€remedies,€a€prerequisiteÏto€obtaining€federal€habeas€relief.€€Even€when€the€primary€goal€of€a€review€petition€is€toÏcomply€with€this€exhaustion€requirement,€it€is€important€to€devote€careful€attention€to€theÏpetition€that€you€file€for€exhaustion€purposes,€as€it€can€have€a€helpful€or€injurious€impact€onÏyour€clientððs€chances€of€obtaining€relief€in€federal€court.Ð 6,†'5 ÐÓ€€ÓÌÓ€€]ÂÓà  à1.€€ò òExhaustion€Petition€or€Review€Petition?ó ó€€A€couple€years€back,€the€Rules€ofÐ 0€ ÐCourt€were€amended€to€permit€a€ð ðPetition€for€Review€to€Exhaust€State€Remediesðð€in€lieu€ofÏa€review€petition.€(Rule€8.508)€€Under€this€rule,€there€is€no€requirement€of€a€Statement€ofÏIssues€or€a€description€of€the€Reasons€for€Granting€Review€(Rule€8.508(b)(3)),€and€fewerÏcopies€of€the€petition€need€be€filed€with€the€Court.€(Rule€8.44(a)(4).)€€The€requirements€forÏsuch€a€petition€are€limited.€€It€must€include€ÌÓ33€Óà8  àà ` à(A)€A€statement€that€the€case€presents€no€grounds€for€review€under€ruleÏ8.500(b)€and€the€petition€is€filed€solely€to€exhaust€state€remedies€for€federalÏhabeas€corpus€purposes;Ð Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` à(B)€A€brief€statement€of€the€underlying€proceedings,€including€theÏnature€of€the€conviction€and€the€punishment€imposed;€andÐ Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` à(C)€A€brief€statement€of€the€factual€and€legal€bases€of€the€claim.Ð Ð Ð  ÐÓ€33ÄÓÓ€€ÓÌÓ€€¾ÆÓ(Rule€8.508(b)(3)(A)„(C).)Ìà  àAlthough€an€exhaustion€petition€may€save€you€some€time€and€out„of„pocket€costs,€inÏmy€view€it€should€be€used€rarely€and€warily.€€A€careful€framing€of€the€issue€is€essential€toÏraising€and€properly€exhausting€your€claim,€and€thus€it€is€debatable€whether€styling€yourÏpetition€as€an€exhaustion€petition€will€actually€save€you€any€meaningful€time.€€And€it€willÏoften€be€the€case€that€at€least€one€of€your€federal€constitutional€issues€you€are€seeking€toÏexhaust€has€some€ð ðreview„worthyðð€qualities,€and€at€least€a€marginal€chance€of€having€reviewÏgranted,€a€chance€which€is€essentially€thrown€away€if€an€exhaustion€petition€is€filed€in€lieuÏof€a€review€petition.€€Many€times€I€have€packaged€a€review€petition€on€a€range€of€federalÏconstitutional€issues€around€the€theme€of€arguing€for€review€as€to€one€or€more€issues,€whileÏsimply€seeking€exhaustion€of€the€remaining€issues,€a€strategy€which€canððt€be€undertakenÏwith€a€pure€exhaustion€petition.Ìà  àI€recommend€using€an€exhaustion€petition€only€where€you€believe€that€all€the€federalÏconstitutional€issues€fit€the€category€of€ð ðarguable€but€completely€hopeless.ðð€€As€explainedÏin€the€next€section,€even€where€you€are€pretty€sure€there€is€no€chance€for€review€to€beÏgranted€on€any€of€your€issues,€putting€together€a€carefully€worded€description€of€the€factualÐ h,¸'2 Ðand€legal€predicates€for€your€issue(s)€and€the€deficiencies€in€the€Court€of€Appealððs€analysisÏcan€be€very€helpful€to€your€clientððs€chances€of€obtaining€any€federal€habeas€relief.ÌÓ€€ÓÌÓ€€ ÍÓà  à2.€€ò òUsing€the€Review€Petition€to€Lay€Out€the€Argument€for€Federal€HabeasÐ 0€ ÐRelief.ó ó€€Even€more€important€than€the€decision€whether€to€file€a€review€or€exhaustionÐ ¶  Ðpetition€is€the€need€to€pay€careful€attention€to€the€content€of€the€petition,€with€the€goal€ofÏadvancing€your€clientððs€chances€at€presenting€and€winning€his€federal€habeas€claim.€€TheÏthesis€here€is€that€your€chances€of€having€review€granted€are€somewhere€between€slim€andÏnun,€I€mean€none.€€Thus€your€goals€in€filing€a€petition€primarily€focused€on€exhaustionÏshould€be€one€of€the€following:ÌÝ ‚3£ ÝÝ  ÝÝ‚3£˜ÏÝÔ2b«Ôð`ðÔ3  Ôà0  àÝ  ÝKeep€the€ball€in€the€air,€i.e.,€do€the€minimum€necessary€to€preserve€the€clientððs€abilityÐ ¼  Ðto€seek€relief€in€federal€court;€or€Ýƒ3£˜ÏÃÏ݌Р(#(# ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ ‚3£ ÝÝ  ÝÝ‚3£ÙÐÝÔ2b«Ôð`ðÔ3  Ôà0  àÝ  ÝUse€your€knowledge€and€experience€about€the€case€and€the€issue,€and€about€theÐ ¼  Ðrequirements€for€success€in€a€federal€habeas€claim,€to€do€all€you€can€to€advance€yourÏclientððs€chances€of€succeeding€in€federal€court.݃3£ÙÐÑ݌Р(#(# ÐŒÝ  ÝÓ€€ÓÌÓ€€pÒÓà  àAs€you€might€have€noticed€from€the€phrasing€of€these€two€options,€I€strongly€favorÏthe€second€approach.€€Too€often€a€review€petition€filed€to€exhaust€the€claim€in€state€court€isÏlittle€more€than€a€rehash€of€the€opening€brief.€€While€this€is€easy€and€takes€less€time,€you€canÏdo€a€tremendous€service€for€your€client€ð!ð€and€get€paid€for€it€ð!ð€by€crafting€a€review€petitionÏwhich€both€raises€and€preserves€the€federal€constitutional€claims€presented€on€appeal,€andÏwhich€takes€apart,€as€best€you€can,€the€reasoning€of€the€Court€of€Appeal€opinion€on€theÏfederal€constitutional€issue.€€If€you€spend€some€time€putting€together€an€effective€reviewÏpetition€that€accomplishes€both€goals,€you€will€have€utilized€the€federal€court€requirementÏof€an€exhaustion€petition€to€the€stateððs€highest€court€(òòO'Sullivan€v.€Boerckelóó,€òòsupraóó,€526€U.S.Ð ¼& ". Ðat€pp.€844„845)€as€a€way€of€drafting€the€key€parts€of€your€clientððs€federal€habeas€petition.€€Ìà  àFor€example,€instead€of€just€pointing€out€how€the€Court€of€Appeal€decision€was€a€badÏinterpretation€of€the€law,€demonstrate€how€it€was€Ô‡ˆÈ ˆ‹Šã¸Ôð ðcontrary€to,€or€involved€an€unreasonableÐ <+Œ&4 Ðapplication€of,€clearly€established€Federal€law,€as€determined€by€the€Supreme€Court€of€theÐ ¼, (6 ÐUnited€States.ððÔ#†Šã¸‹ ˆˆÈþÖ#Ô€(Ô‡ŠÒý ‹‹Šã¸Ô28€U.S.C.€ðð€2254(d)(1)Ô#†Šã¸‹ ‹ŠÒýØ#Ô.)€€This€is€not€all€that€difficult€to€do€in€mostÐ ° Ðinstances.€€And,€it€provides€you€with€a€good€opportunity€to€channel€some€of€that€outrage€youÏfelt€when€your€first€read€the€opinion€on€appeal€and€which€I€have€urged€you€not€to€vent€in€aÏrehearing€petition.Ìà  àAs€an€additional€touch,€when€arguing€the€prejudice€from€the€trial€error€in€your€case,Ïdonððt€confine€yourself€to€òòChapmanóó€analysis€as€to€how€the€error€was€not€harmless€beyond€aÐ 0 €  Ðreasonable€doubt;€argue€alternatively€that€šÔ‡ŠÒý ‹‹Šã¸ÔÔ‡ˆ’ªˆ ‹ŠÒýÔthe€error€had€a€ð ðsubstantial€and€injurious€effect€orÐ °  Ðinfluence€in€determining€the€juryððs€verdict€.€.€.ðð€(šÔ#†ˆÈ ˆˆˆ’ªuÚ#ÔÔ#†Šã¸‹ ˆˆÈ”Ú#ÔšòòBrecht€v.€Abrahamsonóó€(1993)€507€U.S.€619,Ð 0€  Ð636-638šš),€the€accepted€standard€of€prejudice€for€all€federal€habeas€claims,€even€when€thereÏwas€no€meaningful€òòChapmanóó€review€in€state€court.€(òòFry€v.€Plileróó€(2007)€__€U.S.€__,€127€S.Ð 0€  ÐCt.€2321,€2328.)Ìà  àGet€the€picture?€The€goal€is€to€allow€your€client,€or€you€on€his€behalf,€to€use€the€formÏfederal€habeas€petition€and€to€present€the€substance€of€the€issues€raised€by€simply€attachingÏa€copy€of€the€review€petition.€€I€have€personally€ghost€written€many€federal€habeas€petitionsÏon€behalf€of€clients€by€doing€little€more€than€this.€€Under€the€headings€of€the€form€where€youÏare€supposed€to€describe€the€nature€of€the€issue€and€the€factual€basis€and€legal€authorityÏwhich€support€it,€I€will€simply€indicate,€ð ðSee€Argument€2€in€review€petition,ðð€or€what€haveÏyou..€€Alternatively,€I€will€include€separate€ð ðattachmentsðð€which,€largely€copying€and€pastingÏfrom€the€prose€in€the€review€petition,€set€forth€the€legal€and€factual€bases€for€federal€habeasÏrelief.€€In€this€way,€you€can€use€the€review€petition,€which€is€included€as€part€of€yourÏcompensated€work€in€state€court,€as€a€way€of€furthering€your€clientððs€ability€to€put€forwardÏthe€best€possible€argument€in€federal€court,€where€you€might€not€be€paid€for€your€work.׃S×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð 0$€* Ðà  àI€would€add,€as€a€final€comment,€that€doing€this€to€help€your€client€will€also€give€youÏand€your€client€a€chance€to€have€the€district€court€exercise€its€discretionary€power€andÏappoint€you€as€his€counsel€in€federal€court.€€Once€an€OSC€is€issued,€and€the€attorney€generalÐ °($0 Ðfiles€a€complicated€answer,€especially€one€raising€complex€claims€of€procedural€default,Ïthere€may€well€be€strong€grounds€for€arguing€that€your€untrained€client€needs€help€toÏadequately€present€his€claim.׃"×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð ° ÐÓ€€ÓÌÓ€€‹ãÓà  àF.€€ò òReview€Petition€in€Cert.„Worthy€Cases.ó ó€€Normally,€your€exhaustion€focus€inÐ °  Ðcrafting€a€review€petition€will€be€on€setting€up€your€clientððs€federal€habeas€petition€in€federalÏdistrict€court.€€However,€in€some€instances€another€goal,€and€sometimes€the€only€goal,€willÏbe€to€lay€the€groundwork€for€a€petition€for€writ€of€certiorari€in€the€U.S.€Supreme€Court.€€Ìà  àTwo€sets€of€examples€come€readily€to€mind.€€First€and€most€obvious€are€casesÏinvolving€Fourth€Amendment€issues.€€Under€the€puzzling€but€now€longstanding€ð ðabstentionÏdoctrineðð€holding€of€òòStone€v.€Powellóó€(1976)€428€U.S.€465,€federal€courts€will€not€grantÐ ¶ Ðhabeas€relief€where€there€was€ð ðfull€and€fair€litigation€of€a€Fourth€Amendment€claimðð€in€stateÏcourt.€€In€practice,€this€means€that€your€only€chance€of€obtaining€federal€court€review€of€aÏFourth€Amendment€issue€is€by€means€of€a€cert€petition€to€the€U.S.€Supreme€Court.€€WhileÏgrants€of€cert€are€rare€compared€to€the€number€of€wins€obtained€on€federal€habeas€review,Ïthere€are€still€a€decent€number€of€Fourth€Amendment€cases€where€cert€is€granted.Ìà  àA€second,€more€significant€class€of€cases€where€the€primary€goal€of€your€reviewÏpetition€will€be€setting€up€a€cert€petition€involve€contested€questions€of€law€where€there€isÏno€clear€precedent€from€the€Supreme€Court€favorable€to€your€argument.€€An€example€of€thisÏis€any€of€the€numerous€òòApprendióó„related€issues€concerning€use€of€recidivism€facts€to€increaseÐ 6 †% Ðthe€maximum€punishment.€€Based€on€the€constellation€of€opinions€in€òòApprendióó€and€itsÐ ¶!' Ðprogeny,€it€seems€clear€enough€that€there€are€five€votes€on€the€Supreme€Court€to€overruleÏthe€5„4€holding€in€òòÔ‡ŠÒý ‹‹Šã¸ÔAlmendarez„Torres€v.€United€Statesóó€(1998)€523€U.S.€224,€which€held€thatÐ ¶$ + Ðthere€is€no€right€to€a€jury€trial€for€proof€of€prior€convictions€which€increases€the€maximumÏpunishment€for€a€current€offense.€€Ô#†Šã¸‹ ‹ŠÒýê#ÔHowever,€until€the€Supreme€Court€actually€overrulesÐ ¶'#/ ÐòòÔ‡ŠÒý ‹‹Šã¸ÔAlmendarez„TorresóóÔ#†Šã¸‹ ‹ŠÒý ì#Ô,€you€will€have€an€enormous€impediment€to€obtaining€any€kind€of€federalÐ 6)†$1 Ðhabeas€relief€based€on€an€òòApprendióó€argument€as€to€proof€of€recidivism€facts,€since€it€will€beÐ ° Ðalmost€impossible€to€argue,€in€light€of€òòÔ‡ŠÒý ‹‹Šã¸ÔAlmendarez„TorresóóÔ#†Šã¸‹ ‹ŠÒý^í#Ô,€that€a€state€courtððs€decision,€suchÐ 0€ Ðas€òòPeople€v.€McGeeóó€(2006)€38€Cal.4th€682€and€òòBlack2óó€(òòPeople€v.€Blackóó€(2007)€41€Cal.€4thÐ ° Ð799,€which€conclude€that€there€is€no€jury€trial€right€to€proof€of€recidivism€facts€whichÏincrease€the€maximum€punishment,€is€either€Ô‡ˆÈ ˆ‹Šã¸Ôð ðcontrary€to,€or€involved€an€unreasonableÐ °  Ðapplication€of,€clearly€established€Federal€law,€as€determined€by€the€Supreme€Court€of€theÏUnited€States.ððÔ#†Šã¸‹ ˆˆÈóî#Ô€(Ô‡ŠÒý ‹‹Šã¸Ô28€U.S.C.€ðð€2254(d)(1)Ô#†Šã¸‹ ‹ŠÒýåï#Ô.)€€Thus,€in€this€type€of€case,€as€in€FourthÐ °  ÐAmendment€cases,€the€goal€of€an€exhaustion€review€petition€is€to€set€up€òòóóa€potentiallyÐ 0€  Ðwinning€cert€petition.Ìà  àYour€strategy€in€drafting€such€a€cert€petition€will€be€different€than€the€other€twoÏcategories€of€petitions.€€With€review„worthy€issues,€the€best€approach€is€to€focus€onÏCalifornia€statutes€and€case€law,€situating€your€ð ðimportant€question€of€lawðð€argument€in€aÏdiscussion€of€related€authority€from€the€California€Supreme€Court€and€conflicting€case€lawÏfrom€the€Courts€of€Appeal.€€For€the€habeas€exhaustion€petition,€the€goal€is€to€make€it€clearÏthat€the€Court€of€Appealððs€opinion€ignores€controlling€Supreme€Court€case€law€or€is€entirelyÏunreasonable€in€its€application€of€settled€constitutional€principles.€€In€setting€up€a€cert.Ïpetition,€you€want€to€craft€something€akin€to€the€ð ðreview„worthyðð€petition€but€which€isÏfocused€not€on€state€court€case€law€and€authority,€but€on€pertinent€lines€of€U.S.€SupremeÏCourt€case€law€and€supporting€and€conflicting€authority€from€lower€federal€courts€and€sisterÏstates.€€While€the€bulk€of€your€work€in€putting€together€such€an€argument€will€be€done€in€theÏdraft€of€the€cert€petition€itself,€you€can€use€the€review€petition€as€a€starting€point€forÏorganizing€your€broader€focused€claim€of€an€issue€of€national€constitutional€significance.€Ì€à  àObviously,€the€cert„focused€review€petition€is€particularly€called€for€where€theÐ °%!, ÐCalifornia€Supreme€Court€is€on€record€against€you.€€Otherwise,€you€will€likely€want€to€couchÏyour€issue€of€national€importance€as€review„worthy€in€the€California€Supreme€Court,€whereÏyour€chances€of€having€review€granted€are€probably€better.ÌÓ€€ÓÌÓ€€"÷Óà  àG.€€ò òReview€Petitions€in€Habeas€Casesó ó.€€When€you€have€filed€a€habeas€petition€inÐ 0,€'5 Ðthe€Court€of€Appeal€and€it€is€denied,€either€summarily€or€as€part€of€the€opinion€on€appeal,Ïyou€will€almost€always€want€to€seek€further€relief€in€the€California€Supreme€Court,€both€asÏa€way€of€correcting€the€wrong€decision€by€the€lower€court€and€because€exhaustion€of€suchÏa€petition€in€the€stateððs€highest€court€is€a€requirement€to€obtaining€federal€habeas€relief.€€ÏExhaustion€will€almost€always€be€called€for€since€habeas€petitions€invariably€involve€federalÏconstitutional€rights,€usually€the€Sixth€Amendment€right€to€effective€assistance€of€counsel.€Ï€Several€considerations€need€to€be€addressed€when€you€embark€upon€this€next€stage€ofÏhabeas€review.ÌÓ€€ÓÌÓ€€TúÓà  à1.€€ò òReview€Petition€or€Successor€Original€Jurisdiction€Petition?ó 󀀀Р0€  Ðà  àThere€are€two€viable€options€for€renewing€and€exhausting€the€habeas€claim€in€theÏCalifornia€Supreme€Court.€€The€first€option€is€a€successor€petition€filed€under€the€originalÏjurisdiction€of€the€Supreme€Court;€the€second€is€a€petition€for€review.€€You€will€need€toÏpromptly€figure€out€which€procedural€route€is€best€for€advancing€your€clientððs€chances€ofÏobtaining€relief€in€state€or€federal€court.Ìà  àThere€are€advantages€and€disadvantages€to€both.€€The€timing€of€your€filing€could€beÏa€significant€factor.€€A€habeas€denial€is€deemed€to€be€ð ðfinalðð€on€the€date€of€filing.€(RuleÏ8.264(b)(2)(A).)€€Thus,€a€review€petition€in€a€habeas€petition€will€normally€be€due€10€daysÏafter€denial.€€However,€if€the€habeas€denial€occurs€on€the€same€day€as€the€opinion€in€aÏrelated€appeal,€you€will€have€the€normal€forty€days€to€file€a€review€petition.€(RuleÏ8.264(b)(4).)€€Thus,€you€will€face€a€critical€ð ðguillotine€ruleðð€deadline€if€you€choose€to€fileÏa€review€petition,€which€will€be€especially€difficult€to€meet€if€the€habeas€is€denied€on€aÏdifferent€day€than€the€opinion€on€appeal.׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð ¶$ + Ðà  àThe€ð ðtimelinessðð€of€a€successor€habeas€is€not€based€on€a€fixed€deadline.€€Instead,Ð 6&†!- ÐCalifornia€follows€a€puzzlingly€complicated€ð ðflexibleðð€system€which€requires€that€petitionsÏnormally€be€filed€in€a€diligent€manner,€and€includes€a€ð ðÔ‡ˆÈ ˆ‹Šã¸Ôwell„established€rule€that€anyÐ 0€ Ðsubstantial€delay€in€seeking€relief€by€petition€for€writ€of€habeas€corpus€must€be€explained€andÏjustified.ðð€(òòIn€re€Clarkóó€(1993)€5€Cal.4th€750,€795,€fn.€30.)€€However,€bear€in€mind€thatÐ 0 € Ðunexplained€or€insufficiently€justified€delays€in€bringing€habeas€petitions€can€and€will€leadÏto€a€denial€by€the€Supreme€Court,€with€a€citation€indicating€that€it€is€based€on€lack€ofÏtimeliness,€which€will€in€turn€has€the€grave€consequence€of€eliminating€the€normal€tollingÏof€the€federal€habeas€statute€during€the€pendency€of€the€habeas€petition€in€the€CaliforniaÏSupreme€Court.€(See€òòÔ#†Šã¸‹ ˆˆȶ#ÔPace€v.€DiGuglielmoóó€(2005)€544€U.S.€408€and€òòBonner€v.€Careyóó€(9thÐ °  ÐCir.€2006)€š435€F.3d€993.)€€To€be€safe,€and€in€the€absence€of€explainable€circumstancesÏwhich€justify€delay,€a€successor€habeas€should€be€filed€in€the€Supreme€Court€within€sixtyÏdays€of€denial,€in€order€to€avoid€the€risk€that€the€federal€courts€will€deny€statutory€tollingÏwhere€there€is€any€further€significant€and€unjustified€delay.€(See€€òòEvans€v.€Chavisóó€(2006)€546Ð ° ÐU.S.€189.)Ìà  àOn€balance,€it€will€normally€be€the€better€and€safer€practice€to€exhaust€habeas€claimsÏby€means€of€a€petition€for€review.€€There€are€three€very€significant€advantages€to€such€aÏpetition€over€a€successor€habeas.€€The€first€and€most€obvious€is€the€timing€of€a€ruling€on€theÏpetition.€€The€Supreme€Court€will€decide€a€review€petition€within€sixty€days€of€its€filing,Ïwith€an€occasional€brief€extension.€€Original€habeas€petitions€in€the€Court€normally€takeÏmany€months€and€even€as€long€as€a€year€to€be€decided.€€Ìà  àSecond,€in€a€review€petition,€you€can€emphasize€not€only€the€underlying€constituƒ¼tional€error€which€deprived€your€client€of€significant€trial€rights€(e.g.,€IAC),€but€also€theÏfailure€of€the€Court€of€Appeal€to€issue€an€Order€to€Show€Cause.€€Thus€in€your€ð ðissues€forÏreviewðð€and€ð ðreasons€for€granting€reviewðð€discussions€in€the€review€petition,€you€canÏemphasize€the€fact€that€the€legal€authority€for€habeas€relief€is€solid,€that€the€determinationÏof€the€validity€of€the€claim€really€comes€down€to€a€question€of€credibility€of€your€clientÏversus€that€of€trial€counsel€(to€pick€a€typical€example),€and€that€the€only€proper€result€is€toÏissue€an€OSC€because€of€the€settled€rule€that€a€court€considering€a€habeas€petition€mustÐ 0-€(6 Ðpresume€the€truthfulness€of€its€allegations€and€issue€the€OSC€where€a€prima€facie€case€forÏrelief€is€made.€(See,€e.g.,€òòIn€re€Clarkóó,€òòsupraóó,€5€Cal.€4th€at€p.€769,€fn.€9.)Ð 0€ Ðà  àAnd€third,€for€reasons€which€may€have€more€to€do€with€the€differences€in€the€staffÏassigned€by€the€Supreme€Court€to€screen€review€petitions€versus€habeas€petitions,€it€seemsÏto€be€the€case€that€the€Court€is€more€likely€to€take€such€an€argument€seriously€in€connectionÏwith€a€review€petition.€€Arbitrarily€denied€habeas€claims€presented€on€review€seem€moreÏoften€to€lead€to€fairly€prompt€orders€for€additional€briefing,€and,€somewhat€less€frequently,Ïissuance€of€Orders€to€Show€Cause,€than€do€original€jurisdiction€petitions.Ìà  àIn€a€few€cases€where€unusual€circumstances€are€present,€an€original€habeas€petitionÏwill€make€more€sense€than€a€review€petition.€€If,€for€example,€you€need€to€significantly€alterÏthe€number€and€nature€of€arguments€presented€from€what€was€raised€in€the€Court€of€Appeal,Ïor€add€to,€take€away,€or€alter€affidavits€submitted€in€support€of€the€petition,€an€originalÏpetition€allows€you€to€do€this.€€Where€additional€time€is€reasonably€needed€to€secure€newÏsupporting€declarations€or€exhibits€for€the€petition,€or€to€investigate€an€additional€issueÏwhich€may€have€just€come€to€light,€the€flexible€nature€of€the€diligence€rule€can€permit€this.€ÏAnd€finally,€where€the€issue€is€exceedingly€complex€in€terms€of€the€facts€and/or€legalÏargument,€and€you€think€you€can€present€and€exhaust€the€issue€more€fully€and€carefullyÏwithout€having€to€worry€about€the€8400€word€limit€for€a€review€petition,€a€successor€habeasÏis€a€better€choice,€particularly€where,€as€in€long€sentence€cases,€the€time€delay€in€getting€aÏruling€is€of€only€marginal€significance.Ìà  àAs€a€final€point,€which€may€be€of€great€significance€to€many€readers,€your€chancesÏof€getting€òòpaid€óófor€your€work€as€appointed€counsel€is€considerably€greater€for€a€reviewÐ 0$€* Ðpetition,€where€you€will€routinely€be€compensated,€than€for€an€original€petition,€where€youÏlikely€will€not€be€compensated,€as€it€is€outside€the€scope€of€the€appointment.€€(I€guess€IÏshould€have€said€this€first.€.€.€.)ÌÓ€€ÓÌÓ€€+Óà  à2.€€ò òOne€Review€Petition€or€Two?ó ó€€If€you€are€filing€a€review€petition€in€the€SupremeÐ °*&3 ÐCourt,€an€additional€point€of€puzzlement€comes€up€where€the€direct€appeal€and€habeas€areÐ 6,†'5 Ðdecided€on€the€same€day:€€Are€you€supposed€to€file€one€review€petition€as€to€both€the€appealÏand€habeas,€or€two€separate€petitions?€€Ìà  àWhen,€as€is€typical€with€Sixth€District€cases,€the€Court€of€Appeal€issues€an€opinionÏin€the€direct€appeal,€and€then€separately€disposes€of€the€habeas€with€a€denial€order,€you€areÏrequired€to€file€two€separate€review€petitions,€one€for€the€habeas,€one€for€the€review€petition.Ï(Rule€8.500(d).)€€If,€as€occasionally€happens,€the€habeas€issue€is€analyzed€and€denied€as€partÏof€a€consolidated€appellate€opinion,€you€are€supposed€to€file€one€review€petition€as€to€theÏsingle€opinion€in€the€case€which€covers€both€the€direct€appeal€and€the€habeas€issues.ÌÓ€€ÓÌÓ€€òÓà  àH.€€ò òPetitions€for€Review€of€Non„Final€Orders€of€the€Court€of€Appealó ó.€€The€ruleÐ 0€  Ðallowing€for€review€by€the€Supreme€Court€is€not€limited€to€opinions€on€appeal€and€habeasÏdeterminations.€€Rather,€Rule€8.500€permits€a€petition€for€review€ð ðof€any€decision€of€theÏCourt€of€Appeal,€including€any€interlocutory€order,€except€the€denial€of€a€transfer€of€a€caseÏwithin€the€appellate€jurisdiction€of€the€superior€court.ðð€(Rule€8.500(a)(1).)€€Thus€a€reviewÏpetition€can€be€filed€to€challenge€denial€of€motions€to€augment€the€record,€motions€toÏconsolidate€cases€on€appeal,€or€any€other€non„final€order€of€the€court€which€affects€yourÏclientððs€rights€on€appeal.€€Ìà  àMost€interlocutory€orders,€including€augmentation€motion€denials,€are€ð ðfinalðð€afterÏthirty€days,€and€you€will€thus€have€forty€days€to€prepare€a€review€petition.€€However,€a€fewÏspecified€orders€are€final€when€made,€meaning€you€will€only€have€ten€days€in€which€to€fileÏthe€petition.€(See€Rule€8.264(d)€[denials€of€original€petitions,€writs€of€supersedeas,€bailÏapplications,€orders€for€transfer,€or€dismissal€requests€are€final€when€made].)Ìà  àObviously,€this€type€of€review€petition€should€be€used€sparingly.€€A€good€exampleÏof€when€to€ask€for€review€would€be€a€denial€of€a€crucial€augmentation€request€which€appearsÏto€be€particularly€arbitrary.€€In€the€pre„Rushing€PJ€days,€this€occurred€with€some€regularity,Ïand€review€petitions€were€actually€taken€with€some€success€to€challenge€this.׃#×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Ð 6)†$1 Ðà  àIn€this€type€of€a€review€petition,€you€are€not€really€seeking€review€in€order€to€presentÏan€issue€of€statewide€importance,€but€are€actually€using€the€Supreme€Court€as€a€kind€ofÏappellate€supervisory€authority€to€fix€arbitrary€rulings.€€In€this€sense,€a€review€petition€on€anÏinterlocutory€order€is€more€akin€to€taking€an€extraordinary€writ€up€from€the€trial€court€to€theÏCourt€of€Appeal€to€correct€a€trial€court€order€which€will€do€irreparable€harm€to€your€client.€ÏÌÓ€€ÓÌÓ€€NÓIII.€€ò òWHAT€AND€WHEN€TO€TELL€THE€CLIENT€ABOUT€REVIEWó ó.Ð 0€  Ðà  àOnce€an€opinion€is€filed,€you€should,€of€course,€promptly€write€to€the€client€to€adviseÏhim€of€the€bad€news,€sending€a€copy€of€the€opinion.€€At€this€point,€you€will€hopefully€haveÏalready€made€your€decision€whether€to€file€a€review€petition.€€If€you€will€be€filing€such€aÏpetition,€just€tell€him€you€intend€to€fight€on€and€that€you€will€send€a€copy€of€the€petitionÏwhen€it€is€filed.€€Ìà  àIf€you€will€not€be€filing€a€review€petition€ð!ð€e.g.,€if€the€issues€are€not€of€much€interestÏlegally,€or€turn€on€a€factual€determination€that€is€hard€to€challenge,€and€there€is€no€significantÏfederal€constitutional€issue€for€which€collateral€federal€review€would€be€available€ð!ð€youÏshould€promptly€advise€the€client€that€you€will€not€be€filing€such€a€petition,€and€provide€himÏwith€instructions€as€to€how€to€file€such€a€petition€on€his€own€if€he€wants€to€raise€and/orÏpreserve€the€issue.€€Sample€letters€are€available€on€our€website.€Ï(Ô4‚MunøÔÝ‚NÍOÝÔÿÔòòÝ  ÝÔ5  Ôhttp://www.sdap.org/pt-s-letters.htmlÔ6{#ÔÝ‚NÍO#hichÝóóÔÿÔÝ  ÝÔ7nd–½#Ô€.)Ð 6 †% Ðà  àWhen€review€is€denied,€you€should€again€write€to€the€client€with€the€bad€news.€€HereÏtoo,€itððs€important€to€describe€the€next€step,€explaining€the€availability€of€federal€habeasÏreview€(and/or€certiorari,€as€in€Fourth€Amendment€denials)€and€the€time€deadlines€for€this.ÏAgain,€sample€letters€are€available€on€SDAPððs€website.Ìà  à€If€you€are€potentially€available€to€assist€the€client€in€putting€together€his€federalÏhabeas€petition,€you€should€say€so€right€off€the€bat.€€€As€a€last€editorial€comment,€I€stronglyÐ 6)†$1 Ðencourage€counsel€to€provide€at€least€minimal€assistance€to€your€client€by€filling€out€theÏfederal€habeas€form€for€the€client€when€such€issues€have€been€presented€and€preserved.€ÏYour€time€commitment€in€doing€this€will€generally€be€no€longer€than€an€hour€or€two,€andÏthe€potential€benefit€to€your€clients€will€be€considerable€in€terms€of€properly€presentingÏpreserved€issues€and€avoiding€numerous€traps€of€procedural€default.€ÌÓ€€ÓÌÓ€€6(Óà@%ìàò òCONCLUSIONó óˆÐ °   Ðà  àThe€title€of€this€article€promised€it€would€be€ð ðall€you€will€ever€need€to€know€aboutÏreview€and€rehearing€petitions.ðð€€Of€course€I€have€failed€to€deliver€on€this€promise€becauseÏwhat€you€most€need€to€know€about€these€petitions€can€be€learned€best€only€throughÏexperience€in€writing€them€in€winning€and€(mostly)€losing€causes€which€you€will€garner€overÏthe€years.€€Ìà  àWhile€digesting€all€of€the€above,€keep€in€mind€that€the€Supreme€Court€rarely€grantsÏreview€in€criminal€cases,€and€even€more€rarely€does€anything€favorable€for€our€clients€whenÏit€does€grant€review.€€Many€times€we€wish€there€was€a€Supreme€Court€up€there€who€couldÏhelp€our€client,€and€the€law,€on€a€particularly€important€issue€that€was€savaged€in€the€CourtÏof€Appeal€opinion,€but€in€reality,€the€best€bet€for€our€client€will€be€to€frame€a€proto„federalÏhabeas€exhaustion€petition€since€there€is€virtually€no€chance€the€Supreme€Court€will€grantÏreview€or€do€anything€favorable€if€they€did€grant€review.Ìà  àHowever,€it€is€worth€recalling€that€the€present€Supreme€Court,€while€disappointingÏcompared€to€the€Bird„era€Court€or€the€innovative,€due„process„focused€courts€of€the€60s€andÏ70s,€is€still€dramatically€better€than€the€Lucas€Court,€whose€reign€was€truly€the€Dark€AgesÏfor€criminal€appellate€practice€in€California.€€That€court€rarely€granted€review€in€criminalÏcases,€and€nearly€always€ruled€against€the€criminal€defendant.€€The€George€Court€grantsÏreview€in€a€fair€percentage€of€criminal€cases.€And€though€a€painful€loss€seems€to€be€the€normÏwhen€review€is€granted,€the€Court€has€proven€to€be€occasionally€fair€and€forthright,׃J×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€andÐ 0)€$1 Ðcan€be€counted€on€sometimes€to€produce€dissenting€opinions€which€have€something€of€theÏold€passion€for€criminal€law€issues.׃Q×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€point€of€this€momentary€incursion€into€theÐ 0€ Ðsubstantive€holdings€of€the€Court€is€simply€to€emphasize€that€review„worthy€issues€are€worthÏpursuing€because€you€can€occasionally€win€in€the€Supreme€Court,€or€at€least€help€lay€theÏgroundwork€for€a€future€win€in€another€case€on€your€issue€when€the€votes€or€impetus€for€theÏwin€may€be€more€favorable.Ìà  àRegardless€of€our€thoughts€about€the€wisdom€of€pursuing€review„worthy€cases€in€aÏpro„prosecution€Supreme€Court,€the€review€process€will€always€be€needed€to€preserveÏfederal€constitutional€claims€on€behalf€of€your€client.€€If€done€properly,€as€recommendedÏherein,€the€mandatory€step€of€seeking€review€can€be€used€to€contribute€significantly€to€yourÏclientððs€opportunity€to€obtain€relief€in€federal€court.Ìà  àSo,€keep€those€rehearing€and€review€petitions€flying,€and€keep€up€the€good€work€forÏour€clients.