Parties and Attorneys
GALLEGO (GERALD A.) ON H.C.
Division SF
Division SF
Case Number S042737
| Party | Attorney |
|---|---|
| Gerald A. Gallego : Petitioner San Quentin State Prison San Quentin, CA 94974 | Linda E. Shostak Morrison & Foerster 345 California St. San Francisco, CA 94104-2675 Rachel Krevans Morrison & Foerster, LLP 345 California St. San Francisco, CA 94104-2675 |
| Department of Corrections : Non-Title Respondent | Attorney General - San Francisco Office Christopher J. Wei, Deputy Attorney General 50 Fremont St., Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94105 Attorney General - San Francisco Office Dane R. Gillette, Deputy Attorney General 50 Fremont St., Suite 300 San Francisco, CA |
| California Appellate Project : Amicus curiae | California Appellate Project - SF Kathryn K. Andrews, Staff Attorney One Ecker Place, Suite 400 San Francisco, CA 94105 |
Case Summary
Supreme Court Case:
S042737
Court of Appeal Case(s):
No Data Found
Case Caption:
GALLEGO (GERALD A.) ON H.C.
Case Category:
Habeas (AA Post-Judgment)
Start Date:
10/14/1994
Case Status:
complete
Issues:
Original Proceeding. The court issued an order to show cause limited to whether habeas corpus claims as to which the court had denied investigatory funds should be deemed timely.
Disposition Date:
08/03/1998
Case Citation:
18 Cal.4th 825 original opinion
NOTE: The statement of the issues is intended simply to inform the public and the press of the general subject matter of the case. The description set out above does not necessarily reflect the view of the court, or define the specific issues that will be addressed by the court.
Cross Referenced Cases:
S004561
PEOPLE v. GALLEGO (GERALD ARMOND)
Docket (Register of Actions)
GALLEGO (GERALD A.) ON H.C.
Division SF
Division SF
Case Number S042737
| Date | Description | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| 10/14/1994 | Petition for writ of habeas corpus filed | by attorneys Linda E. Shostak and Rachel Krevans (256 pp. excluding exhibits) |
| 10/14/1994 | Exhibit(s) filed | 16 vols. of exhibits in support of petition |
| 10/14/1994 | Application filed | petitioner's ex parte application (Confidential) |
| 10/14/1994 | Filed: | Vol Xvi of Exhibits Temporarily Under Seal Pending Court Action Re Application - See Above. |
| 11/29/1994 | Note: | Confidential request for Habeas Funds filed this Date in A.A. # S004561. |
| 12/20/1994 | Received: | Copy of Petnr's Federal H.C. Petn. |
| 03/03/1995 | Change of Address filed for: | Resp Atty General's San Francisco Office. |
| 03/03/1995 | Application for Extension of Time filed | To file Informal Response. |
| 03/07/1995 | Informal response requested | Letter sent to respondent requesting informal response (Rule 60); due 4-6-95. Any reply due within 15 days of service & filing of response. |
| 03/07/1995 | Note: | "First Supplemental" Habeas Funds request filed this Date in A.A. #S004561. |
| 03/16/1995 | Order filed: | re petitioner's ex parte application filed October 14, 1994 (CONFIDENTIAL ORDER) |
| 04/07/1995 | Extension of Time application Granted | To 6-5-95 To file Informal Response. |
| 06/01/1995 | Application for Extension of Time filed | To file Informal Response. |
| 06/02/1995 | Filed: | Petnr's Statement of Nonobjection (to Resp's request for Eot) |
| 06/06/1995 | Extension of Time application Granted | To 8-4-95 To file Informal Response. |
| 08/01/1995 | Application for Extension of Time filed | To file reply To Informal response (filed Prematurely) |
| 08/04/1995 | Informal Response filed (AA) | (160 pp.) |
| 08/04/1995 | Motion to unseal record filed (AA) | Motion by respondent to unseal the exhibits or to strike the arguments (4 pp.) |
| 08/09/1995 | Extension of Time application Granted | To 10-18-95 To file reply To Informal Response. |
| 08/16/1995 | Motion to unseal record denied | Respondent's motion to unseal exhibits or strike arguments, filed August 4, 1995, is denied. |
| 10/18/1995 | Reply to Informal Response filed (AA) | (80 pp. excluding attached exhibits) |
| 06/28/1996 | Letter sent to: | petitioner's counsel regarding missing pages to exhibits to petition |
| 07/08/1996 | Received: | letter from petitioner's counsel, dated July 8, 1996, in response to court's letter of June 28, 1996. |
| 07/10/1996 | Order to show cause issued | The Director of Corrections is ordered to show cause before this court, when the matter is placed on calendar, why this court should not deem certain specific claims set forth in the petition for a writ of habeas corpus to be timely, either because they were presented "without substantial delay," or because "good cause" exists for any such delay, insofar as such claims are related to issues for which the court denied investigative funds requested by petitioner in 1989. Specifically, the court seeks briefing on the issue whether, and under what circumstances, this court's prior denial of a "confidential request for authorization to incur expenses to investigate potential habeas corpus issues" (Supreme Court Policies Regarding Cases Arising from Judgments of Death, Policy 3, Compensation Standard 2-3) may be relevant to establishing "absence of substantial delay" (id., Timeliness Standard 1-1.2; In re Clark (1993) 5 Cal.4th 750) or "good cause for delay" (Timeliness Standard 1-2; In re Clark, supra) in the presentation of claims related to potential claims that were proposed to this court in such confidential request. Petitioner shall have until July 17, 1996, to serve and file a waiver of confidentiality as to (i) his 1989 "confidential request for authorization to incur expenses to investigate potential habeas corpus issues," (ii) this court's confidential order regarding that request, and (iii) the declarations (but not attachments) set out in sealed Exhibits 98 & 100. If petitioner declines to waive confidentiality as to those matters, the OSC issued herein may be vacated, and the court may act on the petition without further delay. The return shall be filed in this court on or before August 9, 1996. All discussion or briefing of the merits of any claim set forth in the petition is deferred pending further order of this court. votes: George C.J., Mosk, Kennard, Baxter, Chin and Brown JJ. |
| 07/17/1996 | Filed: | petitioner's Waiver of Confidentiality in Support of Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus |
| 07/22/1996 | Application filed | petitioner's application for protective order in connection with petition for writ of habeas corpus (6 pp.) |
| 07/25/1996 | Filed: | Proof of Service (corrected) of Waiver of Confidentiality and Applic. for Protective Order. |
| 07/30/1996 | Application for Extension of Time filed | To file return To Osc. |
| 07/31/1996 | Filed: | respondent's response to application for protective order (3 pp.) |
| 08/02/1996 | Filed: | petitioner's reply in support of application for protective order (2 pp.) |
| 08/05/1996 | Extension of Time application Granted | To 9-6-96 To file return To Osc. |
| 08/14/1996 | Order filed: | Regarding the documents provided by petitioner to respondent on July 17, 1996, in conjunction with this court's order to respondent to show cause (dated July 10, 1996): 1. Respondent shall limit its use of the documents, and the information contained therein, to rebuttal of petitioner's habeas corpus claims, including responding to the order to show cause. 2. Respondent shall not use the documents, or the information contained therein, against petitioner in any manner during any future proceeding, including any possible retrial; and 3. Respondent shall treat the documents, and the information contained therein, as confidential and not disseminate them or disclose their contents other than in the course of its litigation of this habeas corpus proceeding. |
| 09/05/1996 | Written return filed | (18 pp.) |
| 09/25/1996 | Application for Extension of Time filed | To file Traverse. |
| 09/27/1996 | Extension of Time application Granted | To 11-4-96 To file Traverse. |
| 11/04/1996 | Traverse to return filed | (24 pp.) |
| 03/23/1998 | Letter sent to: | Counsel Advising case Could be Scheduled for Oral Argument as early as May 1998, Calendar. |
| 04/02/1998 | Case Ordered on Calendar: | Wednesday, May 6, 1998 @ 9am |
| 05/06/1998 | Cause Called and Argued (not yet submitted) | |
| 05/06/1998 | Submitted by order | |
| 08/03/1998 | Opinion filed: OSC discharged; H.C. denied | Majority Opinion by George, C.J. -- joined by Baxter, Werdegar, Chin, JJ. Concurring Opinion by Mosk, J. C&D Opinion by Kennard, J. C&D Opinion by Brown, J. Mosk,J. and Brown,J. would deny the petition soley on the merits. |
| 08/03/1998 | Order filed denying remaining Habeas Corpus issues | Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied. Claims I, II, III, and IV are denied on the merits. To the extent Claim II asserts that the trial court erred in failing to order a competency hearing, it was raised and rejected on appeal, and hence also is barred under In re Waltreus (1965) 62 Cal.2d 218, 225 (Waltreus). In addition, each claim is barred as untimely under In re Robbins (Aug. 3, 1998, S048929) __ Cal.4th __, (Robbins), and In re Clark (1993) 5 Cal.4th 750 (Clark). Claim V is denied on the merits. To the extent Claim V reasserts a claim that was raised and rejected on appeal, it is barred under Waltreus, supra. To the extent Claim V presents a claim based on the appellate record but not raised or addressed on appeal, it should have been raised on appeal and is barred under In re Dixon (1953) 41 Cal.2d 756 759 (Dixon). In addition, Claim V is barred as untimely under Robbins, supra, and Clark, supra. Claim VI is denied on the merits. In addition, it is barred as untimely under Robbins, supra, and Clark, supra. Claims VII, VIII, and IX are denied on the merits. To the extent these claims reassert claims raised and rejected on appeal, they are barred under Waltreus, supra. To extent these claims are based on the appellate record but were not raised or addressed on appeal, they are barred under Dixon, supra. In addition, each claim is barred as untimely under Robbins, supra, and Clark, supra. Claims X & XI are denied on the merits. In addition, each claim is barred as untimely under Robbins, supra, and Clark, supra. Claims XII & XIII are denied on the merits. In addition, each claim is barred as untimely under Robbins, supra and Clark, supra. Claims XIV & XV are denied on the merits. Each is also barred under Waltreus, supra. In addition, each claim is barred as untimely under Robbins, supra and Clark, supra. Claim XVI is denied on the merits. Subparts A and D thereof are barred under Waltreus, supra. Subparts B and C thereof are barred as waived under People v. Green (1980) 27 Cal.3d 1, 27-34, and under Dixon, supra. In addition, the claim is barred as untimely under Robbins, supra, and Clark, supra. Claims XVII and XVIII are denied on the merits. Claim XVIII also is barred under Waltreus, supra. In addition, each claim is barred as untimely under Robbins, supra, and Clark, supra. Claim XIX is denied on merits. Subparts A(1)-(3) and B(1) are barred under Dixon, supra, and the remaining subparts of Claim XIX are barred under Waltreus, supra. In addition, the claim is barred as untimely under Robbins, supra, and Clark, supra. Claim XX is denied on the merits. To the extent it reasserts a claim that was raised and rejected on appeal, it is barred under Waltreus, supra. To the extent it presents a claim based upon the appellate record but not raised or addressed on appeal, it is barred under Dixon, supra. In addition, the claim is barred as untimely under Robbins, supra and Clark, supra.Claim XXI is denied on the merits. It also is barred under Waltreus, supra. In addition, it is barred as untimely under Robbins, supra, and Clark, supra. Claim XXII is denied on the merits. To the extent it reasserts a claim that was raised and rejected on appeal, it is barred under Waltreus, supra. To the extent it presents a claim based upon the record but not raised or addressed on appeal, it is barred under Dixon, supra. In addition, the claim is barred as untimely under Robbins, supra, and Clark, supra. Claims XXIII and XXIV are denied on the merits. Each also is barred under Waltreus, supra. In addition, each claim is barred as untimely under Robbins, supra, and Clark, supra. Claim XXV is denied on the merits. It also is barred under Dixon, supra. In addition, it is barred as untimely under Robbins, supra, and Clark, supra. Claim XXVI is denied on the merits. It also is barred under Waltreus, supra. In addition, it is barred as untimely under Robbins, supra, and Clark, supra. Claim XXVII is denied on the merits. It also is barred under Dixon, supra. In addition, it is barred as untimely under Robbins, supra, and Clark, supra. Claims XXVIII, XXIX, XXX, & XXXI are denied on the merits. Each also is barred under Waltreus, supra. In addition, each claim is barred as untimely under Robbins, supra, and Clark, supra. Claim XXXII is denied on the merits. In addition, it is barred as untimely under Robbins, supra, and Clark, supra. Claim XXXIII is denied on the merits. It also is barred under Dixon, supra. In addition, it is barred as untimely under Robbins, supra, and Clark, supra. Claim XXXIV is denied on the merits. In addition, it is barred as untimely under Robbins, supra, and Clark, supra. Claim XXXV is denied on the merits. It also is barred under Waltreus, supra. In addition, it is barred as untimely under Robbins, supra, and Clark, supra. Insofar as any claim asserts ineffective assistance of immediately preceding appellate and habeas corpus counsel, it is denied solely on the merits. (Robbins, supra, at p. 57, fn. 35.) Mosk, J., and Brown, J., would deny the petition solely on the merits. |
| 08/18/1998 | Rehearing Petition filed by: | petitioner (9 pp.) |
| 08/18/1998 | Received application to file Amicus Curiae Brief | Application of California Appellate Project (CAP-S.F.) to file amicus curiae brief in support of petitioner (brief submitted under separate cover). |
| 08/20/1998 | Permission to file amicus curiae brief granted | The application of the California Appellate Project for permission to file an amicus brief in support of petitioner Gerald A. Gallego is hereby granted. |
| 08/20/1998 | Amicus Curiae Brief filed by: | the California Appellate Project, San Francisco |
| 08/20/1998 | Time extended to consider modification or rehearing | to 11-01-98 |
| 09/23/1998 | Rehearing denied | Petition for rehearing denied. Kennard, J., is of the opinion the petition should be granted. |
| 09/23/1998 | Letter sent to counsel re: | finality of opinion |
| 09/23/1998 | Case Final | |
| 02/25/2015 | Record shipped to State Archives |
Briefs
GALLEGO (GERALD A.) ON H.C.
Division SF
Division SF
Case Number S042737
| Brief | Date Filed | Party and Attorney | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Written return filed | 09/05/1996 | (18 pp.) | |
| Traverse to return filed | 11/04/1996 | (24 pp.) | |
| Amicus Curiae Brief filed by: | 08/20/1998 | the California Appellate Project, San Francisco |
Disposition
GALLEGO (GERALD A.) ON H.C.
Division SF
Division SF
Case Number S042737
Only the following dispositions are displayed below: Orders Denying Petitions, Orders Granting Rehearing and Opinions. Go to the Docket Entries screen for information regarding orders granting review.
Case Citation:
18 Cal.4th 825 original opinion
| Date | Description |
|---|---|
| 08/03/1998 | Opinion: Habeas Corpus denied |
Lower Court
GALLEGO (GERALD A.) ON H.C.
Division SF
Division SF
Case Number S042737
No Court of Appeal data found.