In re Marquez

Filed 7/31/08 In re Marquez CA2/8

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

In re JAVIER MARQUEZ, on Habeas Corpus.

B205102 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA217941)

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING in habeas corpus from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Larry P. Fidler, Judge. Petition denied.

Edward J. Hagerty, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Petitioner.

Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Mary Sanchez and Corey J. Robins, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

While his appeal from a conviction of the murder of Randy Morales (and another murder) was pending (B193733), petitioner Javier Marquez filed this petition for habeas corpus, raising an issue arising outside the appellate record. The issue is whether petitioner was deprived of due process with respect to the Morales murder because an accomplice in that offense, George Vidales, testified at trial under a plea agreement that petitioner contends compelled Vidales to testify in accordance with an interview statement he previously made to police. (See People v. Medina (1974) 41 Cal.App.3d 438, 449-455.) The same issue regarding Vidaless plea agreement was also before us in the appeal of another principal in Moraless murder, at whose trial Vidales also testified. (People v. Reyes (July 28, 2008, B186285) Cal.App.4th (Reyes)). We issued an order to show cause, and received respondents return and petitioners reply to it. The matter was argued concurrently with petitioners appeal.^[1]

In Reyes, supra, Cal.App.4th , we hold that Vidaless plea agreement did not unconstitutionally taint his testimony. For the reasons stated in Reyes, we conclude that the present petition is unmeritorious.

The petition is denied.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

COOPER, P.J.

We concur:

RUBIN, J. FLIER, J.

Publication Courtesy of California lawyer directory.

Analysis and review provided by Escondido Property line Lawyers.

San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com

^[1] As petitioner requests, we take judicial notice of the records of his appeal and the Reyes appeal.