In re Campbell
11 Cal. App. 5th 742
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Donta Campbell was convicted in 2012 of drug offenses and admitted seven prior prison-term enhancements; six prior convictions (for Health & Safety Code §11390(a) offenses) were later redesignated misdemeanors under Proposition 47.
- Campbell filed a Proposition 47 resentencing application and a one-page habeas petition in June 2015 seeking relief from the one-year prior-term sentences.
- The Orange County Superior Court developed an expedited habeas procedure and a form petition circulated among judges, defense counsel, and OCDA staff over ~2 months; OCDA representatives viewed materials but later stated they did not formally agree to the procedure.
- At hearings, defense counsel argued OCDA waived procedural objections by participating/silent; OCDA counsel repeatedly asserted they reserved the right to object and wanted an opportunity to file a return if an Order to Show Cause (OSC) were required.
- Judge Makino granted Campbell’s habeas petition without issuing an OSC, vacating six one-year prior-term sentences and recalculating Campbell’s sentence; the OCDA appealed arguing the court erred by granting relief without first issuing an OSC.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Campbell) | Defendant's Argument (OCDA) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred by granting habeas relief without issuing an Order to Show Cause (OSC) | OCDA’s participation/silence amounted to waiver of right to file a return; OSC not required because issue was purely legal | OCDA did not stipulate or waive the right to file a return and had preserved procedural objections | Reversed: court erred—OSC is mandatory absent a valid stipulation/waiver; no OSC issued, so order is nullity |
| Whether OCDA’s silence during development of expedited procedure constituted a stipulation/waiver to dispense with OSC | Expedited process and form were effectively agreed to; OCDA waived objections | Silence and limited participation did not constitute the stipulation required by Romero; OCDA preserved right to object | OCDA did not stipulate; silence not equivalent to stipulation under Romero and Olson |
| Whether implied/equitable estoppel prevents OCDA from contesting the procedure | OCDA estopped from asserting objections after participating/allowing reliance | OCDA did not waive and estoppel was not raised below | Estoppel not addressed on appeal because it was not raised below; remand allows parties to litigate it anew |
| Whether a pure question of law made OSC unnecessary | Proposition 47 retroactivity is a legal question, so OSC unnecessary | OSC creates a cause and framing for written reasoning; even pure legal questions require OSC to trigger the process | OSC required to create a cause; without OSC the court had no cause and its order is a nullity |
Key Cases Cited
- Romero v. Superior Court, 8 Cal.4th 728 (Cal. 1994) (OSC and opportunity to file a return are required unless the right to file a return is validly waived by stipulation)
- In re Taylor, 60 Cal.4th 1019 (Cal. 2015) (standard of review for habeas matters: de novo for legal questions)
- In re Olson, 149 Cal.App.4th 790 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (failure to object to procedure does not automatically create the Romero stipulation relieving the court of issuing an OSC)
- People v. Whitson, 17 Cal.4th 229 (Cal. 1998) (discussing implied waiver principles in the Miranda context)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (U.S. 1993) (definition of waiver as intentional relinquishment of a known right)
- Engalla v. Permanente Medical Group, 15 Cal.4th 951 (Cal. 1997) (waiver and issues of fact reviewed for substantial evidence)
- People v. Williams, 16 Cal.4th 153 (Cal. 1997) (appellate courts generally will not consider issues raised for first time on appeal)
- Ehrlich v. City of Culver City, 12 Cal.4th 854 (Cal. 1996) (same procedural default principles)