Complaint Review: California Court of Appeal, Third District - Sacramento California
- California Court of Appeal, Third District
914 Capital Mall
Sacramento , California
California Court of Appeal, Third District Justice Coleman Blease, Justice Blease denies secondary appeal in a case where a trial court judge allowed a former attorney to perjure himself under oath, then finding him credible and denying an indigent pro per inmates appeal. Sacramento California
*Author of original report: Appeal vs. Secondary appeal
*Consumer Comment: Context...
A business' first
line of defense
on the Internet.
If your business is
willing to make a
Click here now..
After the California Supreme Court issued an order to show cause ( In re Jacinto Valdovinos Ca. Supreme #S221202) and returned the inmates case to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing in a pending writ of habeas corpus, the trial court judge Bradley L. Boeckman denied the inmates ineffective assistance of counsel claim on the ground that the inmates former attorney, Max Ruffcorn, was a credible witness. Max Ruffcorn and the inmate, Jacinto Jose Valdovinos, testified at the evidentiary hearing. The petitioner, Valdovinos, testified that his former attorney, Ruffcorn, advised him to reject a plea bargain of 16 years based upon and error of law and a false assumption that the only witness in the case would not be allowed to testify. Ruffcorn testified differently that he never advised petitioner to reject any plea bargain and has never done that with any clients ever.(note: after the denial, the petitioner found an unpublished case law involving Max Ruffcorn that showed Ruffcorn had advised a client to take an 8 year plea deal with a past client, directly contradicting his evidentiary hearing testimony. This fact was raised in the new petition to the Court of Appeal) During the evidentiary hearing, Max Ruffcorn testified contradictory and in some instances purposely lying under oath on numerous occasions. Judge Boeckman of the Shasta County Superior Court observed these instances of false testimony but did nothing and ruled that the attorney was credible and that the pro per petitioner was not credible. In essence, the judge denied the claim and petitioners life sentence was allowed to stand. Petitioner then reraised the claim in the California Court of Appeal on August 14, 2018. He attached a copy of the evidentiary hearing transcript to the writ petition showing the false testimony of his former attorney.
On November 19, 2018 the petition was summarily denied by Justice Coleman Blease. It is interesting to note that Justice Blease has been implicated in a corruption scandal in which he along with other judges routinely deny claims in the court of appeal covering up trial court judges and attorneys misconduct in the lower court. Here is another instance of corruption. (See Court of appeal, Third appellate district case #C087746) One may think the claim did not have merit, but if that was the case, the California Supreme Court would not have issued an order to show cause. Justice Blease is again attempting to cover up lower court misconduct.
This report was posted on Ripoff Report on 11/20/2018 04:16 PM and is a permanent record located here: https://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/california-court-of-appeal-third-district/sacramento-california-95814/california-court-of-appeal-third-district-justice-coleman-blease-justice-blease-denies-s-1467821. The posting time indicated is Arizona local time. Arizona does not observe daylight savings so the post time may be Mountain or Pacific depending on the time of year. Ripoff Report has an exclusive license to this report. It may not be copied without the written permission of Ripoff Report. READ: Foreign websites steal our content
If you would like to see more Rip-off Reports on this company/individual, search here:
Advertisers above have met our
strict standards for business conduct.