Brooks

Brooks v. Shemaria

Good Law
144 Cal. App. 4th 434·2006 Cal. App. LEXIS 1695·2006 Daily Journal DAR 14451·50 Cal. Rptr. 3d 430·2006 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 10108
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 30, 2006B187434California3,054 words

Opinion

Opinion

Rothschild, J.

Convicted criminal defendant John S. Brooks appeals from the judgment entered in favor of his former attorney, Joseph Shemaria, on Brooks’s complaint for breach of contract and professional negligence. The trial court granted summary judgment on the ground that, in order to prevail, Brooks had to prove he was actually innocent of the crime of which he was convicted. We conclude that the actual innocence requirement does not apply to Brooks’s claims, because his contract claim is merely a fee dispute, and his professional negligence claim relates only to proceedings concerning the return of seized property. We therefore reverse.

BACKGROUND

This appeal arises from Brooks’s civil lawsuit against his privately retained criminal defense counsel, Shemaria. The record before us does not indicate all of the charges and special allegations against Brooks, but it does show that on June 26, 2002, Brooks pleaded no contest to a single charge of manufacture of a controlled substance, in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11379.6, subdivision (a), and admitted a single special allegation of transportation, sale, or distribution of a controlled substance, in violation of…

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.