Opinion
No. CV09-4003255S
August 16, 2010
HABEAS DECISION
THE COURT: The following is going to constitute the decision of the court.
This court has been involved in the adjudication of numerous writs of habeas corpus over the past seven or eight years and I firmly believe that this writ of habeas corpus, the Great Writ, as it's often called, is one of the most important legal procedures that we have in existence in our Anglo-American system of justice.
The writ of habeas corpus is designed to be the last resort; it is designed to be the bulwark, the final line of defense to prevent an injustice being wrought within the legal system. I have seen it work, both as a student of the law and as a practicing attorney and as a sitting jurist.
Any attorney who raises his or her right hand to take an oath as an attorney should treasure this writ and hold it sacred.
While the law should be available to punish those who commit wrongdoing, when mistakes are made, and it is true that mistakes can be made, each of us charged with that responsibility of protecting and upholding the law should be eager to see an injustice corrected.
Having said that, one must understand a little history of the writ.
When first conceived about the 13th century, there was no right to appeal a decision, and for the vast majority of the writ's existence, there hasn't been a right to appeal the decision of a judge on a writ of habeas corpus. However, of recent vintage in this country, recent being within the last 150 to perhaps 200 years, the right to appeal the denial or granting of a writ of habeas corpus has been created.
Now, there is also another principle in the law that needs to be honored, and that is the principle of finality. There comes a point in the life of a case in which it has been litigated where all potential issues have been addressed and decided. The law favors finality; hence, the principles of res judicata and collateral estoppel.
In the instant case, it is clear that the issues surrounding the conviction of Mr. Ancona, the petitioner in this case, have been extensive and exhaustively litigated.
This petition was a seven-count amended petition initially and the court dismissed four of those back in April because those four counts sought to revisit the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel, which has been litigated, litigated, litigated.
It is final. There are no issues surrounding the effective assistance of counsel.
The court left standing three counts that on their face did not appear to have been necessarily litigated, and that was referring to the motion to dismiss — I'm sorry, referring to the amended petition.
Now things have changed since April 12th of 2010.
First of all, the respondent filed a return on April 28th, 2010 raising the defenses of procedural default, res judicata and collateral estoppel. A reply was filed on May 12th of 2010. The reply does not adequately or appropriately deny the defenses raised by the respondent.
I'm not going to repeat the history of this case. The respondent has done a good job in laying out the exhaustive history of litigation that has surrounded this case in the memo, respondent's memorandum of law in support of its motion to dismiss, memo . . . I'm sorry, motion number 122, paragraph Roman Numeral I.
A doctrine that has come into favor of late is the doctrine of abuse of the writ.
Now, I've listened very carefully to what the petitioner has had to say today. I have noted the procedural history of the case as set forth by the respondent and I do find at this point that this and any further filings of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus would constitute successive writs and be an abuse of the writ.
So while I can understand the reluctance of the petitioner to accept the finality of the decision in his case, he has been afforded, fully afforded due process of law at the trial level, the appeal level, the habeas level, the habeas appeal, level, the motion for a new trial level, and he failed to avail himself of the opportunity to file an appeal of the denial of the motion for new trial.
At this stage, the court agrees with the respondent. The matters are successive, the matters are res judicata and the petitioner has been procedurally defaulted as to all matters surrounding his conviction.
The motion to dismiss is granted.
Mr. Clerk, if you'll please serve the appeal papers.
All other pending motions, of course, are rendered moot by the court's dismissal.
Good luck, Mr. Ancona.
Court is adjourned.
(Whereupon, this hearing concluded.)