People v. Donovan CA5
F081240
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jul 14, 2021Background
- Defendant Jeremiah Donovan was convicted by jury of assault with a deadly weapon and found to have personally inflicted great bodily injury; he was sentenced to an 18-year term (with other unrelated consecutive terms).
- At trial the primary evidence identifying Donovan was a 911 call from the victim (Monroe) naming “Miah,” victim and witness Bonnie Palmer’s statements identifying Donovan, and physical items (a flashlight and gray plaid shirt) found at Donovan’s home matching descriptions.
- Monroe did not appear at trial; he later gave recorded statements recanting or disclaiming knowledge; Palmer also recanted at trial, but both had previously identified Donovan to officers.
- In February 2020 Donovan moved under Penal Code §1405 for postconviction DNA testing of items (flashlight, shirt, sluice box); the trial court denied the motion, finding identity was not a significant issue and testing would not create a reasonable probability of a different outcome.
- Donovan mailed a notice of appeal within 20 days of the denial but did not file a petition for writ of mandate within the §1405(k) 20-day deadline; he asked the Court of Appeal to treat the notice of appeal as a constructively filed writ.
- The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, refusing to apply the constructive-filing doctrine and, alternatively, upholding the trial court’s determination on the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the notice of appeal should be treated as a timely petition for writ of mandate (constructive filing doctrine) | Court should dismiss because no compelling circumstances justify applying constructive filing; defendant’s failure was his own fault. | The mailed notice of appeal was received within 20 days and should be treated as a constructive filing of a timely writ. | Constructive filing doctrine not applied; appeal dismissed. |
| Whether identity was a "significant issue" under §1405(g)(3) | Identity was not significant given strong eyewitness/physical-link evidence tying Donovan to the assault. | Identity should be considered a significant issue meriting DNA testing. | Identity was not a significant issue. |
| Whether favorable DNA results would have created a "reasonable probability" of a more favorable outcome under §1405(g)(5) | No: given the totality of evidence (911 identification, witness statements, matching items at defendant’s home), absence of DNA would not undermine confidence in the verdict. | Yes: absence of donor DNA on key items could have raised reasonable doubt. | No reasonable probability; trial court correctly denied testing. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Antilia, 176 Cal.App.4th 622 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (discusses constructive filing doctrine in §1405 context)
- Olson v. Cory, 35 Cal.3d 390 (Cal. 1983) (clarifies limits on appeals from nonappealable orders)
- People v. Slobodion, 30 Cal.2d 362 (Cal. 1947) (addresses non-jurisdictional institutional obstacles to filing)
- Morehart v. County of Santa Barbara, 7 Cal.4th 725 (Cal. 1994) (if converted petition would be denied on merits, appeal may be dismissed)
- Richardson v. Superior Court, 43 Cal.4th 1040 (Cal. 2008) (defines "reasonable probability" standard for §1405(g)(5))
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (standard for "reasonable probability" in ineffective assistance context adopted for §1405)
- People v. Watson, 46 Cal.2d 818 (Cal. 1956) (standard for "reasonable probability" to affect verdict)