People v. Klene CA2/4

Filed 1/21/25 P. v. Klene CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(a). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115(a).

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR

THE PEOPLE, B330963

Plaintiff and Respondent, Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. YA033562 v.

JOHN GAVIN KLENE AND EDWARD R. DUMBRIQUE,

Defendants and Appellants.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Amy N. Carter, Judge. Reversed and remanded with instructions. Deirdre O’ Connor, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendants and Appellants. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Stephanie C. Brenan and Jonathan M. Krauss, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

This case involves two individuals, John Gavin Klene and Edward R. Dumbrique (appellants), who were convicted of murder in 1998, and have since been exonerated through habeas corpus proceedings. With over 25 years having passed since their wrongful murder convictions, appellants now seek to be found “factually innocent” by a preponderance of the evidence within the meaning of Penal Code section 1485.55, subdivision (b).2 As counsel states in appellants’ opening brief: “Put simply, this appeal isn’t about money; it’s about the system’s acknowledgement of [appellants’] actual innocence and the permanent removal of these false accusations from the public record so that these two men can rebuild their lives free from the stigma of ‘suspected murderer.’”3

1 Because the issue presented in this appeal is narrow and straightforward, and because we are not publishing this opinion, we resolve this case by memorandum opinion. (See Cal. Stds. Jud. Admin., § 8.1.) 2 All undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. Section 1485.55, subdivision (b) provides: “In a contested or uncontested proceeding, if the court has granted a writ of habeas corpus or vacated a judgment pursuant to Section 1473.6 or paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 1473.7, the person may move for a finding of factual innocence by a preponderance of the evidence that the crime with which they were charged was either not committed at all or, if committed, was not committed by the petitioner.” 3 Appellants’ counsel has augmented the record to include documentation showing appellants have already obtained compensation from the California Victim Compensation Board (“the Board”) for each day they were wrongfully imprisoned. In