In re Casillas
Filed 9/13/06 In re Casillas CA1/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
| In re REUBEN CASILLAS on Habeas Corpus. | A115009 (Mendocino County Super. Ct. No. SCUK-CRCR-05-66591-02) |
THE COURT:*
Petitioner, Reuben Casillas, seeks a writ of habeas corpus directing the County of Mendocino Superior Court to accept his notice of appeal as timely filed.
The parties are familiar with the factual and procedural history of the case, and we need not reiterate it here in detail. (People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847.) Petitioner contends that trial counsel assured him that a notice of appeal would be filed on his behalf. Trial counsel neglected to timely file the notice. (Roe v. Flores-Ortega (2000) 528 U.S. 470; Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668; In re Benoit (1973) 10 Cal.3d 72.)
Respondent concedes that petitioner is entitled to the relief he seeks, and waives issuance of an order to show cause. Respondent also waives oral argument and stipulates to the immediate issuance of the remittitur.[1]
Therefore, the petition for writ of habeas corpus is granted to the extent that the notice of appeal dated March 6, 2006 in People v. Casillas (2006, No. SCUK-CRCR-05-66591-02) is deemed constructively, timely filed.
The County of Mendocino Superior Court appeal clerk is directed to file Reuben Casillas's notice of appeal, dated March 6, 2006, a copy of which is enclosed with the superior court's copy of this opinion. The appeal clerk, upon filing of said notice of appeal, shall comply with the provisions of rule 30(c) of the California Rules of Court.
This opinion is final for all purposes immediately upon filing, and the Clerk of this Court shall forthwith issue the remittitur. (See Ng v. Superior Court (1992) 4 Cal.4th 29, 34, fn. 1; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 26(c)(1).)
Publication courtesy of California pro bono lawyer directory.
Analysis and review provided by Chula Vista Property line attorney.
* Before Marchiano, P. J., Stein, J., and Swager, J.
[1] By his petition, Casillas has necessarily agreed to such expedited relief.
