Kaplan

(HC) Dearman v. Kaplan

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaMay 3, 20222:21-cv-02412California654 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 RYAN ALAN DEARMAN, No. 2:21-cv-2412 TLN CKD P Petitioner, v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS JULIE KAPLAN,1 Respondent. 16 Petitioner is a California parolee proceeding pro se with an application for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging Colusa County convictions for dissuading a witness and domestic battery. He claims the trial court violated the Fifth and Sixth Amendments by not permitting private counsel to represent petitioner at trial. Petitioner was found guilty by a jury. On January 21, 2020, the trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed plaintiff on probation for three years. ECF 15-1. Petitioner appealed, raising the same issues he does here. ECF No. 15-2. Petitioner sought review as to the Court of Appeal’s denial of his claims in the California Supreme Court and the petition for review was denied. ECF 15-3 & 4.

1 Julie Kaplan, a “Parole Administrator” in San…

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.