Neely

People v. Neely

Bad Law
1999 Cal. App. LEXIS 197·70 Cal. App. 4th 767·82 Cal. Rptr. 2d 886·99 Daily Journal DAR 2281·99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1791
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 9, 1999No. C023551; No. C024936California9,544 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Morrison, J.

J.After two earlier felony convictions and prison terms, defendant Charles Frederick Neely committed his first robbery murder in 1956. (.People v. Neely (1958) 163 Cal.App.2d 289 [ 329 P.2d 357 ].) After completion of his “life” sentence (his second) he was loosed upon the populace in 1975 and thereafter committed a home-invasion robbery murder on March 15, 1982. {People v. Neely (1993) 6 Cal.4th 877 [ 26 Cal.Rptr.2d 189 , 864 P.2d 460 ].)

The authorities turned a codefendant, Malcolm Centers, against defendant and arranged for a taped conversation between them (the van tape). *773 Defendant was sentenced to death, but the California Supreme Court vacated his conviction on the ground that the authorities had violated his right to counsel and his attorney failed to object to evidence adduced by the violation. ( In re Neely (1993) 6 Cal.4th 901 [ 26 Cal.Rptr.2d 203 , 864 P.2d 474 ].)

The case was remanded. Neely successfully moved to recuse the district attorney’s office, claiming bias in the decision to seek the death penalty a second time. The Attorney General filed a notice of appeal (No. C023551) which automatically stayed the recusal order. (Pen. Code, § 1424, subd.…

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.