 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
INTRODUCTION
The defendant is in custody in Colorado on a criminal charge that is currently being challenged in Colorado State Court. In October, 2002 the defendant filed three petitions for writ of Habeas Corpus with this court, challenging three prior convictions in California. Each conviction resulted from a coerced or an unintelligent made guilty plea. The defendant would like to start by pointing out the fact that the Assistant Attorney General’s motion to dismiss the defendant’s petitions, is not facially frivolous and deliberately manipulative (as the defendant will shortly prove), but it is also full of inaccurate information. In her “Memorandum of points and authorities…” filed for each of the three Habeas petitions in regards to her motion to dismiss, at pages 1 through 3 as well as other areas of her memorandums, the Assistant A.G. incorrectly claims that the defendant’s Habeas petition for case No. 02-1155-PA (PLA) is supposedly in regards to some case arising in 1994, when in reality it has been filed in regards to a 1998 escape case and coerced guilty plea. A quick check of page 3 of the said Habeas petition (listing the state court case number and the conviction being challenged) will show you that. The defendant has filed two Habeas petitions stemming from two separate illegal convictions occurring on the same date in 1998 (case No: 02-1155-PA (PLA) and 02-1225-PA (PLA)). The defendant currently only has ONE Habeas petition filed with this court regarding a 1994 illegal conviction (case No: 02-1226-PA (PLA)). The defendant asks the court to take note of the Assistant A.G.’s error regarding this said information. And finally, since these said Habeas petitions have been consolidated per the A.G.’s request, the defendant will be filing this Memorandum arguing against the A.G.’s frivolous motion to dismiss, FOR ALL THREE Habeas petitions, THEN the petitioner will submit TWO SEPARATE SETS of AFFIDAVITS AND BRIEFS (one affidavit and brief for cases: 02-1155-PA (PLA) and 02-1255-PA (PLA) which were both coerced guilty pleas stemming from the same circumstances and which were both convictions rendered on the same date), and: (one affidavit and brief for case 02-1226-PA (PLA) which was an unknowingly and unintelligently made guilty plea and conviction from 1994). Apparently the Assistant A.G. was so busy trying to concoct ways to waste my time, and the court’s time, with frivolous motion to dismiss, that she didn’t even bother to argue against the defendant’s Habeas petitions on their merits. And that’s her own tactical error, and the defendant does not believe that he should be cheated out of arguing the grounds and merits of his petitions to the court, just because opposing counsel made a strategic gamble and chose not to. Thus, the defendant has chosen to submit the two said additional briefs, along with this Traverse, so as to properly argue the merits and need for evidentiary hearings to the court. Neither of the two briefs is over 15 pages long (not including affidavits and exhibits), and in any case the defendant is entitled to file three 15 page traverses for his three Habeas petitions anyways, so the defendant hopes the court will accept the two said briefs and exhibits, along with this traverse for consideration and review. (*For the sake of time efficiency and because the defendant’s access to materials to redraft completely new briefs for these Habeas petitions, is limited, the defendant has merely redrafted the cover pages for the briefs and affidavits he filed in support of his Habeas petitions In State court, and refilled the same word for word briefs that he filed in State court, in the Federal Habeas petitions at hand, since the arguments and grounds for relief are identical to these Federal versions).
|