People v. Allen CA2/1

California Court of Appeal Dec 22, 2020 No. B306405Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the defendant's petition for writ of error coram nobis was properly denied as a procedurally barred successive petition because the defendant failed to demonstrate a change in law, new facts, or a fundamental miscarriage of justice.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in denying the defendant's petition for writ of error coram nobis as a successive, procedurally barred claim.
Whether Senate Bill No. 1437 constitutes a change in law justifying a successive petition.
Whether the defendant established a fundamental miscarriage of justice exception to the procedural bar.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“It has long been the rule that absent a change in the applicable law or the facts, the court will not consider repeated applications for habeas corpus presenting claims previously rejected.”

“Allen cannot avert the bar on successive claims by simply identifying a new—but wholly inapplicable—change in the law.”

“Allen has not demonstrated that the trial court erred in ruling that his petition for writ of error coram nobis is procedurally barred.”

Filed 12/22/20 P. v. Allen CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

THE PEOPLE, B306405

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA016472) v.

MICHAEL ERIC ALLEN,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Charlaine F. Olmedo, Judge. Affirmed. Michele A. Douglass, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. ____________________________

On June 21, 1990, the People filed an information charging defendant Michael Eric Allen (Allen) with three counts: (1) the murder of Juan Nunez, (2) the second degree robbery of Juan Nunez, and (3) the willful, deliberate, and premeditated attempted murder of Jorge Nunez. Evidence presented at trial showed that on the evening of March 17, 1990, brothers Juan and Jorge Nunez, who were traveling in Juan Nunez’s car, stopped for a red light at the intersection of San Pedro Street and Gage Avenue when Allen and Lifalfa Green ran toward the car with their guns drawn.1 (People v. Allen (Mar. 19, 2020, B301225) [nonpub. opn.] (Allen II); People v. Allen (Nov. 30, 1993, B067989) [nonpub. opn.] (Allen I).) Allen approached the driver’s side of the car and fired three shots at Juan Nunez from a semiautomatic handgun. (Allen II, supra, B301225.) As Juan Nunez fell to the side, his foot slipped from the brake pedal, and the car began to roll forward. (Ibid.) Allen reached into the car, grabbed the gearshift lever, put the car in park, and ordered the brothers out of the car. (Ibid.) As Jorge Nunez pulled his brother out of the car, Allen fired two more shots. (Ibid.) Green ran toward the men and pointed his gun at them. (Allen II, supra, B301225.) Green and Allen then got into the car and drove away. (Ibid.) Juan Nunez suffered three gunshot wounds, two to the left side of his chest and one to the left portion of his back, resulting in his death. (Ibid.)

People v. Allen CA2/1

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

THE PEOPLE, B306405

MICHAEL ERIC ALLEN,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

CHANEY, J.

AI Brief