People v. Lower
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
GARDNER, P. J.
In this case we wrestle unsuccessfully with the growing problem of the dual attack on adequacy of counsel by both direct appeal and writ of habeas corpus. The present practice presents this issue via both vehicles. This is creating an undue burden on the courts without any resulting benefit to defendants or to the administration of justice.
In this case the contention of inadequacy of counsel was made in the direct appeal. Additionally, the State Public Defender filed a writ of habeas corpus presenting the same issue. Since he made factual allegations which demanded a…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Chimel v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
- Mincey v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- People v. PopeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1979
- People v. IbarraCalifornia Supreme Court · 1963
- People v. HillCalifornia Supreme Court · 1974
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by29 opinions
- People v. BolinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1998
- People v. HartCalifornia Supreme Court · 1999
- People v. GonzalezCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1998
- People v. MunozCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1984
- People v. SaldanaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1984
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.