Townsend v. Burke

4 Citing briefs

  1. PEOPLE v. CENTENO

    Appellant’s Petition for Review

    Filed April 19, 2013

    While it appearsthetrial court decided it would not grant probation even before the faulty probation report wasfiled, to the extent the court relied on the report (see, 4RT 709 [trial court referred to p. 4of the report]), a fair reading ofthe record indicates the trial court relied on faulty information in the report to deny probation. The court’s reliance on faulty information denies the defendant due process, requiring anew sentencing hearing. (People v. Eckley (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 1072, 1077-1078, 1080; Townsend v. Burke, supra, 36 334 U.S. 736, 741; United States v. Weston (9th Cir.1971) 448 F.2d 626, 627, 634; and see, United States v. Tucker (1972) 404 U.S. 443, 448-449 [92 S.Ct. 589, 30 L.Ed.2d 592] UnitedStates v. Safirstein (9th Cir.1987) 827 F.2d 1380, 1387.) On remandfor resentencing, a current, supplemental probation report is statutorily required undersection 1203, subdivision (b).

  2. BENAVIDES FIGUEROA

    Petitioner’s Reply to Informal Response

    Filed December 21, 2012

    res that defendant be permitted to inform jury of parole ineligibility to correct misimpression created by state argument that he will present a danger to community if not sentenced to death); Johnson v. Mississippi, 486 U.S. 578 (1988) (holding that Eighth Amendmentrequires reversal of death sentence based in part upon felony conviction subsequently set aside); Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320 (1985) (Eighth Amendment violated where jury given inaccurate information regarding the availability of appellate review ofits decision to sentence defendant to death); Gardner v. Florida, 430 U.S. 349 (1977) (Due Process Clause violated where death sentence is based in part upon false information contained in probation report that defendant had no opportunity to rebut); United States v. Tucker, 404 U.S. 443, 447 (1972) (non-capital sentence imposed on the basis of materially untrue assumptions regarding defendant’s previous criminal record violates Due Process Clause and must be vacated); Zownsend v. Burke, 334 U.S. 736, 740 (1948) (same); United States v. Petty, 982 F.2d 1365, 1369 (9th Cir. 1993) (defendant has due process right not to be sentenced on basis of materially incorrect information). 19 Respondent’s general response is to characterize Mr. Benavides’s overwhelming showing of false evidence as merely a conflict of medical opinion. (Response at 36-49.)

  3. PEOPLE v. ROMERO (ORLANDO) & SELF (CHRISTOPHER)

    Appellant, Orlando Gene Romero, Reply Brief

    Filed May 17, 2011

    The sentencer’s reliance on information that was unreliable in its idealized portraits of the victims and one-sided descriptions of the lives of the survivors, unreliable for its inclusion of speculative psychological opinions and hearsay testimony about people not present, and—most especially—misleading in its appearance of showing an aggravated homicide, all meant that the sentencer lacked the accurate information required by both due processin any sentencing proceeding''’ and the Eighth Amendmentin a capital one.''® By “creat[ing] the risk that the jury will treat the defendant as more deserving of the death penalty than he might otherwise be by relying upon the existence ofan illusory circumstance,” the misleading and unreliable testimony further violated the Eighth Amendment ""Townsend v. Burke, supra, 334 U.S. 736, 741; People v. Chi Ko Wong, supra, 18 Cal.3d 698, 719. "’Greggv. Georgia, supra, 428 U.S. 153, 190 (plurality opn.); Johnson v. Mississippi, supra, 486 U.S. 578, 590; People v. Bacigalupo, supra, 6 Cal.4th 457, 477. 97 by creating “bias in favor of the death penalty.”

  4. PEOPLE v. POTTS

    Appellant’s Opening Brief

    Filed April 30, 2009

    Sentences based on materially false information violate the state and federal constitutional protections for procedural due process. (United States v. Tucker (1972) 404 U.S. 443, 447; Townsend v. Burke (1948) 334 U.S. 736, 741; People v. Arbuckle (1978) 22 Cal.3d 749,754-755; People v. Chi Ko Wong (1976) 18 Cal.3d 698,719.) "A rational penal system must have some concern for the probable accuracy of the informational inputs in the sentencing process."