Menu
COURT FILINGS
Our appeals for justice after Richard Ross’ wrongful convictio
June 19, 2015
1. Appeal From the San Diego County Superior Court
Court of Appeal Case # D066786/San Diego County Superior Court Case # SCD241238
Also called a “Direct Appeal,” this is the first level of the state appeal after a conviction in a county or city court. It must be requested from the court within 30 days of conviction with a document called “Notice to Appeal Conviction.” The filer or convicted person seeking the appeal is called the “petitioner.” The appeal usually asks for a new trial or for clemency/pardon/freedom due to some error of the judicial process that resulted in their conviction. This appeal was filed on June 19, 2015. It was held to be combined with the habeas corpus, which was filed on October 27, 2015. The appeal alleged many violations of Richard Ross’ civil, constitutional, and due process rights.
August 13, 2015
2. Attorney General “Respondent’s Brief”
Related Appeal Case # D066786/San Diego County Superior Court Case # SCD241238
This is the state’s reply or response to the appeal submitted by the convicted petitioner. Known as the “respondent,” the state Attorney General’s office argues against granting the appeal by addressing the convicted petitioner’s specific reasons/complaints for filing the appeal point by point as viewed from their interpretation of the case facts according to the applicable laws.
The Attorney General usually has within 30 days after the filing of the appeal to file their response with the court.
October 27, 2015
3. Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus with Memorandum of Supporting Points and Authorities and Exhibits
Related Appeal Case # D066786/San Diego County Superior Court Case # SCD241238/Fourth Appellate District, Division One Case # D069126
A habeas corpus (Latin for “You should have the body”) is a document filed that introduces new evidence for the case or addresses issues that were not brought to the court’s attention during trial and therefore cannot be considered in the normal appeal process.
In his habeas corpus, Richard Ross’ attorney, Patrick Ford, addressed the civil, constitutional and due process violations covered in his state appeal, combining them with new evidence from medical specialist, Dr. Steven C. Gabaeff, and legal specialist, Attorney Bob Boyce, into an all-encompassing claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. This alleges that the many due process and rights violations committed were exacerbated by the court-appointed public defender for Richard Ross, Euketa Oliver, in handling his case at even a most basic level of competency resulted in an unfair trial.
This document was filed on October 27, 2015 along with the #4 “motion to consolidate habeas corpus petition with pending appeal” so that both documents (appeal and habeas) could be addressed and argued together with their many interrelated points. These were both denied in late December, 2015 without even viewing Richard Ross’ final “reply to Attorney General’s informal response.”
October 27, 2015
3. Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus with Memorandum of Supporting Points and Authorities and Exhibits
Related Appeal Case # D066786/San Diego County Superior Court Case # SCD241238/Fourth Appellate District, Division One Case # D069126
A habeas corpus (Latin for “You should have the body”) is a document filed that introduces new evidence for the case or addresses issues that were not brought to the court’s attention during trial and therefore cannot be considered in the normal appeal process.
In his habeas corpus, Richard Ross’ attorney, Patrick Ford, addressed the civil, constitutional and due process violations covered in his state appeal, combining them with new evidence from medical specialist, Dr. Steven C. Gabaeff, and legal specialist, Attorney Bob Boyce, into an all-encompassing claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. This alleges that the many due process and rights violations committed were exacerbated by the court-appointed public defender for Richard Ross, Euketa Oliver, in handling his case at even a most basic level of competency resulted in an unfair trial.
This document was filed on October 27, 2015 along with the #4 “motion to consolidate habeas corpus petition with pending appeal” so that both documents (appeal and habeas) could be addressed and argued together with their many interrelated points. These were both denied in late December, 2015 without even viewing Richard Ross’ final “reply to Attorney General’s informal response.”
October 28, 2015
4. Appellant’s Motion to Consolidate His Habeas Corpus Petition with the Pending Appeal
Court of Appeal Case # D066786/San Diego County Superior Court Case # SCD241238/Fourth Appellate District, Division One Case # D069126
In this document, Richard Ross’ appellate attorney, Patrick Ford, requested that his direct appeal and habeas corpus be heard at the same time in front of the same judge. This was because the habeas raised “important facts that were outside the record on appeal” that related to the direct appeal and the claim of Ineffective Assistance of Counsel in many ways thus making it more clear if both cases were addressed together.
Also, this document lists the sequence of events attorney Patrick Ford went through to file the direct appeal and habeas corpus, including evidence of how judicial authorities abused their power to impede and flatly deny due process rights.
December 3, 2015
5. Attorney General Kamala Harris’ “Informal Response” to Richard Ross’ Writ of Habeas Corpus
Fourth Appellate District, Division One Case # D069126/San Diego County Superior Court Case # SCD241238
In this document, Kamala Harris argues against the petition of habeas corpus while justifying Richard Ross’ wrongful conviction by misinterpreting and outright manipulating the law.
December 15, 2015
6. Richard Ross’ Reply to Attorney General Kamala Harris’ “Informal Response” to the Habeas Corpus
Fourth Appellate District, Division One Case # D069126/San Diego County Superior Court Case # SCD241238
This document corrects the misrepresentations and manipulations made by the Attorney General in her “informal response” to the habeas corpus and requests oral arguments to be made in court. It is a great summary documenting the many civil, constitutional, and due process rights violations that led to Richard Ross’ incarceration. Appellate Attorney, Patrick Ford, also requested oral arguments in this document, as the case is very intricate and many aspects were needing clarification.
This brief was due in court by Sunday, December 21, 2015. It was filed on Thursday, December 18, 2015, but because we did not know to also “e-file” it electronically, a relatively new requirement, the court denied it. The court waited until Monday, December 22, 2015 (one day after the response was due and four days after it was submitted) to acknowledge receiving it, but denied considering it as part of the combined direct appeal/habeas corpus, claiming it was late.
The clerk could have used professional courtesy to notify Attorney Patrick Ford of the new “e-filing” requirement on Thursday, December 18 or Friday, December 19, but the court chose instead to allow a technicality to deny this document. thus, the direct appeal/habeas corpus were denied without Richard Ross’ complete facts and oral arguments being presented to the court.
May 8, 2017
7. Federal Appeal – Memorandum of Law in Support of Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody (28USC2254)
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California Case # 17CV0953 – JAH(RBB)
This Document filed in a Federal District Court appeals the violations committed in California’s state-level courts.
This appeal is only allowed one year from the date of the state-level appeal denial. Richard Ross missed the one-year deadline because he didn’t have the money to pay for an attorney. However, since a federal habeas corpus can be filed within one year plus 90 days from the date of the state-level appeal denial, Richard Ross chose to file a habeas corpus instead, as he managed to scrape together defense funds within this extra 90-day window. Unfortunately, while federal appeals have timeframes for the court to respond and decide the case, a federal habeas corpus puts no such deadlines on the court. Therefore, Richard Ross could theoretically be in the federal court indefinitely. Trying to speed up the process usually ends in a denial of the habeas corpus.
This habeas corpus was filed on May 8, 2017, and Richard Ross is still waiting on a decision. Also, Richard Ross’ appellate attorney has filed additional supporting documents, listed as 7a, 7b, and 7c.
September 5, 2017
7a. Notice of Lodgment in Habeas Corpus Case
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California Case # 17CV0953 – JAH(RBB)
The State of California sends its response (in which it denies an appeal or habeas) to the Federal District Court that petitioners take their cases to next. they must include copy of the petitioner’s appeal and/or habeas along with the state’s response, so that the Federal District Court can easily see the same documents that the state reviewed in making its decisions. However, in this case, the State of California neglected to include Richard Ross’ original habeas corpus document when it filed its response with the Federal District Court. This is a common tactic to delay the appeal process or possibly provoke a denial of the petitioner’s appeal based on an improperly documented file or based on what appears to be a failure to exhaust one’s appeal remedies in a lower court. this document is Richard Ross’ appellate attorney’s re-filing of the missing habeas corpus document.
September 5, 2017
7b. Petitioner’s Traverse to the Respondent’s Answer to the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California Case # 17CV0953 – JAH(RBB)
This document is a reply to the state’s respondent’s answer to Richard Ross’ federal petition for writ of habeas corpus. This document is another powerful statement that corrects the state’s twisted facts in order to refuse the state’s attempts to justify its due process violations that has led to Richard Ross’ loss of freedom.
July 25, 2018
7c. Objections to the Magistrate’s Report
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California Case # 17CV0953 – JAH(RBB)
A magistrate—an administrator of the court—makes a preliminary review of the federal appeal and habeas corpus file and makes a recommendation to the federal judge in charge of the case to either approve or deny the appeal. The magistrate who made the preliminary review of Richard Ross’ federal appeal and habeas corpus file made the recommendation for a federal judge to deny the appeal and habeas. This document lays out the magistrate’s erroneous findings and debunks them, showing clearly how the court-appointed public defender, Euketa Oliver, did provide sub-standard assistance in Richard Ross’ case, resulting in the need to declare an “ineffective assistance of counsel” occurred, mandating the overturning of Richard Ross’ wrongful conviction.