Richardson v. Superior Court of Tulare County

This writ proceeding is related to petitioner Charles Keith Richardson’s automatic appeal from a judgment of death. (People v. Richardson (2008) 43 Cal.4th 959 [ 77 Cal.Rptr.3d 163 , 183 P.3d 1146 ].) Here, we review the denial of petitioner’s postconviction motion under Penal Code section 1405 1 for DNA testing of certain hair samples that were admitted at his capital trial. 2 Our review of the trial court’s ruling turns upon the applicable standard of review and the interpretation of two key statutory phrases. We conclude that the applicable standard of review for rulings under section 1405 is abuse of discretion. Having so concluded, we further conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied petitioner’s motion on the ground that he failed to demonstrate that “[t]he requested DNA testing results would raise a reasonable probability that, in light of all the evidence, [his] verdict or sentence *1044 would have been more favorable if the results of DNA testing had been available at the time of conviction.” (§ 1405, subd. (f)(5).)

I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE

On September 12, 1989, petitioner was charged in an amended information with one count of…

The majority’s interpretation of Penal Code section 1405 (section 1405) is reasonable. I do not believe, however, that it is the interpretation the Legislature intended. Accordingly, I dissent.

Section 1405 provides a means for prison inmates convicted of a felony to move .in the trial court for and, on a proper showing, obtain forensic deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) testing of physical evidence. (See § 1405, subd. (a).) The obvious purpose of this statute is to enable inmates to try to establish their innocence by use of modem, sometimes highly probative, DNA testing. To obtain the testing, the inmate must satisfy certain requirements, including, as relevant to the issue before us, (1) that the evidence sought to be tested is “material” to the question of the inmate’s identity as the culprit (or one of the culprits); and (2) that “[t]he requested DNA testing results would raise a reasonable probability that, in light of all the evidence, *1055 the convicted person’s verdict or sentence would have been more favorable if the results of DNA testing had been available at the time of conviction.” (§ 1405, subd. (f)(4), (5).)

Four years ago, in May 2004, petitioner moved for DNA testing…

Bill Lockyer and Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorneys General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Mary Jo Graves, Assistant Attorney General, Louis M. Vasquez, Eric L. Christoffersen, Lloyd G. Carter and Kathleen A. McKenna, Deputy Attorneys General, for Real Party in Interest.

This writ proceeding is related to petitioner Charles Keith Richardson's automatic appeal from a judgment of death. ( People v. Richardson (2008) 43 Cal.4th 959 .) Here, we review the denial of petitioner's postconviction motion under Penal Code section 1405 [1] for DNA testing of certain hair samples that were admitted at his capital trial. [2] Our review of the trial court's ruling turns upon the applicable standard of review and the interpretation of two key statutory phrases. We conclude that the applicable standard of review for rulings under section 1405 is abuse of discretion. Having so concluded, we further conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied petitioner's motion on the ground that he failed to demonstrate that "[t]he requested DNA testing results would raise a reasonable probability that, in light of all the evidence, [his] verdict or…