O'Toole

O'Toole v. Law Offices of Casta?da

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 27, 2014B246977California1,031 words

Opinion

Opinion

Flier, J.

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

After jurors failed to reach a verdict in his first criminal trial and following a second trial, O’Toole was convicted in February 2008 of being under the influence of methamphetamine. O’Toole’s motion for a new trial was denied September 5, 2008. He was ordered to serve 120 days in custody. The Superior Court Appellate Division affirmed O’Toole’s conviction on September 13, 2011. The court rejected O’Toole’s argument that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. On January 5, 2012, O’Toole filed a habeas petition, arguing inter alia that he was actually innocent and that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. The superior court rejected these arguments. In 2009, O’Toole sued Carina Castañeda and her law firm (collectively Castañeda) alleging Castañeda committed malpractice while representing O’Toole in the criminal matter. O’Toole alleged that he retained Castañeda in September 2007 to represent him in a criminal matter. O’Toole alleged Castañeda was unprepared when she entered into settlement discussions, failed to prepare for trial, failed to call witnesses at trial, failed to file written motions, subpoena records, conduct legal research…

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.