After the hearing, the Judge decided that the habeas petition be denied. He made this decision because Stearns had passed a new rule that the defendant need only show that Ortega did not consent to Kops’ failure to file for appeal to be titled relief.
The findings were adopted from the Magistrate Judge and recommendations, and denied the relief.
Though, because Ortega did not consent to the failure of Kops, he was entitled to a Relief due to the Stearns law.
Saturday, March 21, 2009
ISSUES OF THE CASE: ROE V. FLORES-ORTEGA
The case came before the court, because Ortega had filed for a federal habeas due to Kops’ failure in filing for an appeal 60 days after Ortega’s trial.
The efforts for Ortega’s appeal, due to Kops negligence, came out untimely, and he was unable to file for an appeal.
The matter was referred to a Magistrate Judge by the United States District Court for Eastern California.
The Judge took the matter and ordered a hearing on wither Kops made the promise to help with Ortega’s appeal
In conclusion of the case that followed suit, the Judge said, “The evidence in this case is, I think, quite clear that there was no consent to a failure to file a notice of appeal”.
The point was argued. They recollected a conversation between Kops and Ortega while he was behind bars involving the appeal process. They discussed how Kops did not recall the promise, but at the same time, she was a professional and experience defense counsel, and that if Ortega had requested an appeal, Kops would have obliged without backing down.
The efforts for Ortega’s appeal, due to Kops negligence, came out untimely, and he was unable to file for an appeal.
The matter was referred to a Magistrate Judge by the United States District Court for Eastern California.
The Judge took the matter and ordered a hearing on wither Kops made the promise to help with Ortega’s appeal
In conclusion of the case that followed suit, the Judge said, “The evidence in this case is, I think, quite clear that there was no consent to a failure to file a notice of appeal”.
The point was argued. They recollected a conversation between Kops and Ortega while he was behind bars involving the appeal process. They discussed how Kops did not recall the promise, but at the same time, she was a professional and experience defense counsel, and that if Ortega had requested an appeal, Kops would have obliged without backing down.
FACTS OF THE CASE: ROE WARDEN V. FLORES-ORTEGA
California found Lucio Flores-Ortega, who had one count of murder, two counts of assault, and a personal use of a deadly weapon, guilty. He pleads guilty in October 1993 in Superior Court. He was accompanied by his public defender, Nancy Kops, and a Spanish language interpreter.
Because of his guilty plea, both assault charges were dropped. The prosecutor of the state also moved to strike the allegation on Ortega’s personal use of a deadly weapon charge.
Ortega was sentenced to 15 years to life in state prison.
The judge informed Ortega, after the sentence that he may file for appeal within 60 days after his appearance in court.
Ms. Kops was appointed to help him file for appeal, and even told Mr. Ortega to bring appeal papers.
No notice of appeal was filed within Ortega’s 60 day limit allowed by the state law.
Ortega tried to file for an appeal but it was seen as untimely.
Kops had not filed for the appeal like she had promised Mr. Ortega.
Ortega filed a federal habeas petition based on his ineffective assistance due to Kop’s failure in noting his appeal after she had promised him she would.
Because of his guilty plea, both assault charges were dropped. The prosecutor of the state also moved to strike the allegation on Ortega’s personal use of a deadly weapon charge.
Ortega was sentenced to 15 years to life in state prison.
The judge informed Ortega, after the sentence that he may file for appeal within 60 days after his appearance in court.
Ms. Kops was appointed to help him file for appeal, and even told Mr. Ortega to bring appeal papers.
No notice of appeal was filed within Ortega’s 60 day limit allowed by the state law.
Ortega tried to file for an appeal but it was seen as untimely.
Kops had not filed for the appeal like she had promised Mr. Ortega.
Ortega filed a federal habeas petition based on his ineffective assistance due to Kop’s failure in noting his appeal after she had promised him she would.
First Monday in October Film
We viewed part of a film in class today titled, “The First Monday in October”. The film is about the decisions of the Supreme Court on a pornographic film. A female justice, Loomis, is offended that Justice Snow, a liberal man, did not go to the film screening to review what has been shown in the film. He believes that the film maker, Malony, should be able to do what he wants.
My opinion of this film and what had happened is two sided. In a sense I agree with both of them. I do think pornography is dirty, and just the thought that something so vile could be shown in front of children makes me feel kind of sick. On the other hand, pornography should be allowed because people have the right to do what they want, and express themselves how they want. If they decide to use pornography to do that, then that is what they do. It is degrading, and it does distort the human nature of love making or whatever you feel comfortable calling it, but it’s how the producer of the film decided to express himself. Now, I am not saying it’s completely ok to openly display porn, though now it’s quite commonly viewed, but what I am saying is that people should be allowed to produce porn, and watch it if that’s what they want to do. I am somewhat of a liberal myself, so I believe people do have a right to do as they want, as long as no one else is harmed by it, or to a certain degree.
My opinion of this film and what had happened is two sided. In a sense I agree with both of them. I do think pornography is dirty, and just the thought that something so vile could be shown in front of children makes me feel kind of sick. On the other hand, pornography should be allowed because people have the right to do what they want, and express themselves how they want. If they decide to use pornography to do that, then that is what they do. It is degrading, and it does distort the human nature of love making or whatever you feel comfortable calling it, but it’s how the producer of the film decided to express himself. Now, I am not saying it’s completely ok to openly display porn, though now it’s quite commonly viewed, but what I am saying is that people should be allowed to produce porn, and watch it if that’s what they want to do. I am somewhat of a liberal myself, so I believe people do have a right to do as they want, as long as no one else is harmed by it, or to a certain degree.
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Illegal Market Views
As a class, we have watched a documentary about illegal trade, and counterfeit products. The video demonstrated how the goods are sold, produced, and the damages they cause. After seeing this video, I feel kind of guilty that this kind of trade happens throughout the world. Unfortunately, there isn’t much we can do to stop it.
When asked how I feel about it, I guess I feel like I have distributed in some way. We all have. It makes me feel that there is something I could have done to help minimize the percentage of illegal trade, download, or purchase. It made me sick to see people create fake medicine, and how it killed innocent people who thought they were going to recover by taking the medicine. It made me sad to see women get excited over their brand new Proda bag, when in all reality, it was fake. Though it makes me think twice about what I do, or what I buy, I know that this is a trade that is going to be hard to demolish. The video did say that its fast spread, and if it is spreading like a contagious disease, it’s going to take a long time to fight off the infection of the black market, or illegal trade.
All in all, I feel awful that this is happening. I know that I can be one of those people who don’t contribute, but then again, I never know when I am or when I am not. Like the victims in the video, we don’t know any better. The best thing we can do is to be cautious.
When asked how I feel about it, I guess I feel like I have distributed in some way. We all have. It makes me feel that there is something I could have done to help minimize the percentage of illegal trade, download, or purchase. It made me sick to see people create fake medicine, and how it killed innocent people who thought they were going to recover by taking the medicine. It made me sad to see women get excited over their brand new Proda bag, when in all reality, it was fake. Though it makes me think twice about what I do, or what I buy, I know that this is a trade that is going to be hard to demolish. The video did say that its fast spread, and if it is spreading like a contagious disease, it’s going to take a long time to fight off the infection of the black market, or illegal trade.
All in all, I feel awful that this is happening. I know that I can be one of those people who don’t contribute, but then again, I never know when I am or when I am not. Like the victims in the video, we don’t know any better. The best thing we can do is to be cautious.
Research plan for my case
I am fairly new to the research of court cases, and so I decided to start with the basics.
Originally, I found the Roe, Warden v. Flores-Ortega case on this site, http://www.findlaw.com/.
It was a helpful site, and it has related cases to the appeal that I am going to research. I do a lot of my searching on Google, and so I plan to research this case through that search engine. I plan to research the decisions made for the case, and to find out what has happened. I am also curious about the actual murder case, because the Roe, Warden v. Flores-Ortega case is about a respondent who was convicted of second-degree murder. I may apply this to my research for my project.
I found several other sites that will help me research this case and appeal.
www.law.cornell.edu
www.oyez.org
http://law.onecle.com/ussc/528/528us476.html
I will look through these, and see what more I can find involving this case.
Originally, I found the Roe, Warden v. Flores-Ortega case on this site, http://www.findlaw.com/.
It was a helpful site, and it has related cases to the appeal that I am going to research. I do a lot of my searching on Google, and so I plan to research this case through that search engine. I plan to research the decisions made for the case, and to find out what has happened. I am also curious about the actual murder case, because the Roe, Warden v. Flores-Ortega case is about a respondent who was convicted of second-degree murder. I may apply this to my research for my project.
I found several other sites that will help me research this case and appeal.
www.law.cornell.edu
www.oyez.org
http://law.onecle.com/ussc/528/528us476.html
I will look through these, and see what more I can find involving this case.
ROE, WARDEN v. FLORES-ORTEGA
ROE, WARDEN v. FLORES-ORTEGA
Searching through cases, I decided to research the Roe, Warden v. Flores-Ortega appeal case.
After pleading guilty to second-degree murder, the respondent in his case was advised by the judge that he had 60 days to file an appeal. The judge advised him of this after his sentencing. Ms. Kops, his council in charge of his appeal papers, had told him to bring the papers into her file so that she may file a notice. She failed to make the appeal notice, and by the time of the respondent’s appeal, it was rejected as an untimely file. He tried to secure state habeas relief was unsuccessful. He filed a federal habeas petition due to Kops’ failure to fulfill her promise, and file for appeal. Unfortunately for the respondent, the relief was denied by the District Court. The Ninth Circuit reversed showing that the respondent was indeed entitled to relief because the habeas only had to show that his counsel, Kops, has failed to file a notice of appeal. This was without the petitioner’s consent.
Searching through cases, I decided to research the Roe, Warden v. Flores-Ortega appeal case.
After pleading guilty to second-degree murder, the respondent in his case was advised by the judge that he had 60 days to file an appeal. The judge advised him of this after his sentencing. Ms. Kops, his council in charge of his appeal papers, had told him to bring the papers into her file so that she may file a notice. She failed to make the appeal notice, and by the time of the respondent’s appeal, it was rejected as an untimely file. He tried to secure state habeas relief was unsuccessful. He filed a federal habeas petition due to Kops’ failure to fulfill her promise, and file for appeal. Unfortunately for the respondent, the relief was denied by the District Court. The Ninth Circuit reversed showing that the respondent was indeed entitled to relief because the habeas only had to show that his counsel, Kops, has failed to file a notice of appeal. This was without the petitioner’s consent.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)