Castro

People v. Castro

Bad Law
78 Cal. App. 4th 1402·93 Cal. Rptr. 2d 770
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 11, 2000F030423, F031668California6,113 words

Opinion

Opinion

Kalashian, J.

In this appeal, appellant Roberta Rita Castro (hereafter Roberta or appellant) asserts that the trial court erred when it refused to appoint the director of the regional center for the developmentally disabled to evaluate her pursuant to Penal Code section 1369; counsel rendered ineffective assistance; and erroneous rulings on evidentiary issues were made by the trial court. In the habeas corpus petition, appellant asserts numerous grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel by both trial counsel. The habeas corpus petition also asserts that: (1) Huffman provided erroneous legal advice to appellant to induce her to accept the plea; and (2) Huffman violated her duty of loyalty to her client by testifying for the prosecution at the hearing to withdraw the plea.

For the reasons that follow, we hold that there was substantial evidence that warranted the appointment of the director of the regional center, and failure to do so deprived the trial court of jurisdiction to proceed. We therefore reverse.

Facts and Proceedings

On January 24, 1997, appellant’s younger sister, 18-year-old Amada Castro (hereafter Amada), lived in a two-bedroom apartment in Bakersfield, California,…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.