People v. Clair CA4/3

Filed 6/28/22 P. v. Clair CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G060644

v. (Super. Ct. No. C57572)

KENNETH CLAIR, OPI NION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Sheila F. Hanson, Judge. Affirmed. Robert L.S. Angres, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. * * *

FACTS Every case is unique. No matter how much it resembles other cases, the parties and the issues are unique to that individual case. And we treat every case with that distinctiveness in mind, striving to give attention to the nuances which distinguish each. But this case raises singularity to a new level. This case is before us on a Wende1 motion filed almost 40 years after the underlying crime. Defendant Clair was convicted of murder and two counts of burglary in 1987 for a crime committed in 1984. The jury found the special circumstance that the murder was committed in the course of a burglary to be true and returned a death penalty verdict, which the trial court imposed in its judgment. In 1992, the California Supreme court affirmed the trial court’s judgment (People v. Clair (1992) 2 Cal.4th 629). Collateral attacks followed and the case wound its way through federal district court, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal, and the United States Supreme Court. (Marte, Warden v. Clair (2012) 565 U.S. 648.) It ended up in the Ninth Circuit for a second time in 2015, and was remanded back to the federal district court with directions to “return the case to the state court to reduce Doe’s sentence to life without parole, unless the State of California elects to pursue a new capital sentencing proceeding . . . .” (Doe v. Ayers (Ninth Cir. 2015) 782 F. 2d 425, 466 [companion case].) This was done. Back in the state court, Clair’s counsel mounted a valiant attack on the special circumstances finding, only to have the prosecution notify the court it was no longer seeking imposition of the death penalty. In 2016, Clair filed a motion to represent himself (Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806). That was granted. A year later, Clair asked to have counsel appointed to assist him. That request was also granted.