Young

Young v. Runnels

Good Law
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJanuary 23, 200603-16859California2,933 words

Opinion

Opinion

I. BACKGROUND

A. Pre-Trial and Trial Proceedings

On July 8, 1995, Young was apprehended after a high- speed car chase and charged with armed robbery and felony evasion. Young, positively identified by two witnesses, waived his Miranda rights and confessed to robbing a Safeway store. Young’s two prior robbery convictions were submitted as “strikes” against him under California’s Three Strikes law, which imposes a minimum sentence of twenty- five years to life on defendants previously convicted of two or more “serious” or “violent” felonies. Cal. Penal Code §§ 667(e)(2)(A), 1170.12(c)(2)(A). Prior to trial, the Alameda County DA’s office offered Young a determinate prison term of sixteen years for pleading guilty. Young rejected this offer, as well as a second offer for a term of twelve years, four months. Later, he regretted his decision and had his court- appointed public defender request a determinate sentence, which the DA’s office declined to extend.

On March 18, 1997, Young’s family retained Kathryn Jo- Anne Dixon as his counsel. Unbeknownst to Young or his family, State Bar disciplinary charges alleging forty-four counts of misconduct were pending against Dixon at the…

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.