In re Aponte
After a court trial, the court convicted defendant Roberto Aponte of inflicting corporal injury on his spouse and further found that he personally inflicted great bodily injury and had a prior serious felony conviction. (Pen. Code, §§ 273.5, subd. (a), 12022.7, subd. (e), 1170.12, subd. (c)(1), 459.)[1] Under the parties’ negotiated agreement, the court sentenced him to four years in prison. It gave him 623 days of presentence custody credit and limited his presentence conduct credit to 15 percent of custody credit, giving him 93 days, for total presentence credit of 716 days. Defendant appealed from the judgment, claiming that counsel rendered ineffective assistance and that the court erred in applying the 15 percent credit limitation (H035701). Defendant reiterated his claim for additional credit in a post-judgment motion for additional credit, which the court denied. Defendant also appealed from the denial of that motion (H036822).[2]
In this petition for a writ of habeas corpus, defendant reiterates the claim of ineffective assistance raised on appeal from the judgment and adds several more claims. In particular, defendant complains that counsel (1) failed to consult a medical expert concerning the combined effect of drugs and alcohol on memory; (2) failed to inform the court that the victim had given false testimony; (3) failed to present the documentation of the victim’s medical history in a coherent way; (4) lost the chance to use the victim’s medical records to impeach her; (5) failed to ask the prosecution’s medical expert factually appropriate questions; and (6) failed to request a limiting instruction concerning the use of hearsay.
We requested an informal response from the Attorney General. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.385(b) &(c); see People v. Romero (1994) 8 Cal.4th 728, 741-742.)
We conclude that defendant fails to make a prima facie showing sufficient to warrant habeas relief due to ineffective assistance and deny the petition.
Comments on In re Aponte