Report: #1467821

Complaint Review: California Court of Appeal, Third District - Sacramento California

  • Submitted:
  • Updated:
  • Reported By: Jason Valdovinos — Los Angeles California United States
  • California Court of Appeal, Third District
    914 Capital Mall
    Sacramento , California
    United States

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...

Show customers why they should trust your business over your competitors...

Is this
Ripoff Report
About you?
Ripoff Report
A business' first
line of defense
on the Internet.
If your business is
willing to make a
commitment to
customer satisfaction
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reject any plea bargain and has never done that with any clients ever.(note: after the denial, the petitioner found an unpublished case law involving Max Ruffcorn that showed Ruffcorn had advised a client to take an 8 year plea deal with a past client, directly contradicting his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

Search for additional reports

If you would like to see more Rip-off Reports on this company/individual, search here:

Report & Rebuttal
Respond to this report!
Also a victim?
Repair Your Reputation!

Updates & Rebuttals


#1 Author of original report

Appeal vs. Secondary appeal

AUTHOR: Jason - (United States)

POSTED: Wednesday, November 28, 2018

Mr. Jacinto Valdovinos had two different appeals going. One was the direct appeal of his conviction. After his conviction was eventually affirmed by the Court of appeal, he filed a writ of habeas corpus, or what's also known as a secondary appeal. Thus the appeal that is talked about in Jim's rebuttal comment is the first appeal, not the writ of habeas corpus that was granted by the California Supreme Court that concerned his trial counsels ineffective advice

Respond to this report!

#2 Consumer Comment


AUTHOR: Jim - (United States)

POSTED: Wednesday, November 28, 2018

A Redding man sentenced in 2012 to life in prison will be resentenced in April following an appellate court's January ruling striking down one of his "strikes" and overturning a gang enhancement.

Although the Third District Court of Appeal upheld Jacinto Jose Valdovino's conviction on attempted murder, kidnapping and other charges, it said Superior Court Judge Bradley Boeckman erred in imposing a 10-year gang enhancment sentence on the attempted murder count.

That's because he had already imposed a 15-year gang enhancement on that same count, the court said.

But, it said, a 10-year enhancement on a kidnapping count that was stayed must be lifted, thereby resulting in no net change in his sentence.

But the court did agree with Valdovino's senior deputy public defender, Max Ruffcorn Sr., who argued there was insufficient evidence his client had a prior "strike" conviction for battery. 

Still, the appellate court said Valdovino could be retried on that allegation if the district attorney's office chooses to do so.

Deputy District Attorney Eamon Fitzgerald said today the appellate court's ruling overturning the "strike" conviction will shave about eight years off Valdovino's sentence, but he won't be retried on that issue due to his already lengthy prison sentence.

"It's still a life sentence," he said.

Valdovino, who is serving his sentence at Kern Valley State Prison in Delano, was not in court for today's hearing.

Valdovino was sentenced in September 2012 to 67 years, plus life in prison for kidnapping and shooting then 18-year-old Adam Santoya of Redding in June 2010.

Valdovino, who skipped town in November 2010 as the trial neared conclusion, was convicted in absentia of premeditated attempted murder, kidnapping, street terrorism, assault with a firearm and a series of related enhancements.

He was finally arrested in 2012 following a multiple-hour standoff with a SWAT team after a tip that he was hiding out in Sonoma County.

According to a Redding police report issued after Valdovino's initial arraignment, Valdovino admitted he had been a Norteños gang member when he was a youth and that he shot Santoya.

That police report also said Santoya was reportedly a member of the rival Sureños gang, a claim Santoya and his family have adamantly denied.

Valdovino told police he shot Santoya in self-defense after the younger man pointed a gun at him.

But Santoya told police he was kidnapped at gunpoint near Lake Redding Park, forced into a car and later shot by Valdovino as he tried to escape.

A bullet struck Santoya in his wallet as he ran away, hitting a religious medallion and protecting him from serious injury.

Respond to this report!