WPCj *UjQ*;8{zBkOh*|kҺvJ7=j4j©x/# ք}2’RV+5K1VVA=,3{W\C'4l+%OPl@)mb kyif" \eZ8rۺ ꬺ%鹿%|F G_*/.Hc**1 q57u RTeaDv,;is#6M(Ǔq1,}cF`kJwqr9P\I7_JE<*J@g l?UrsRs|kS%Wbb!%9<{ \aC?>+z(MF%'s*(C[Ƭ{톒WXm硳_Lb%KhoTa>צ2;.rr, 0? 0_@ 0A 0A 0xB 0C 0C 0D 0VE 0 F 0F 0]G 0G 0H 0.I 0I 0}J 0KK 0K 0L 0IM 0M 0N 0O 0O 0MP 0 Q 0>Q 0R 0R 0S 0T 0U 0V 0iW 0#X 02X 0'Y 0:#Z 0Y]Z 0_Z 0 [ 0\ 0] B*_ D/_ D+` 0+` D/1b 0`b 06.c 0dc 0:ld 0^d 0<eU6@eU>veU*e e Re 0DFfU@fffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLi 0Nhj<6X9`("Courier 10cpiX' 'form writ 2hab bo 0 .  *Swain implied malice conspiracy to commit second degree murder. new rule or change in the law exception to limitations on habeas relief Harris.R42 SpacingDouble Spacingzy2SectionISection I, II etc. with TOC Level 1  8.. 8` ..  2I.3  0 ..  xy2SectionASection A, B etc. with TOC Level 2  8.. 8` ..  2A.3  0 ..  d4,QuoteL/R Indented, Single Spaced8.. 8` ..nt2EnvelopeEnvelope #10, for HP LaserJet    \RV,\R41 SpacingSingle Spacingr 6PleadFinalFinal Pleading with 1.5" Left Margin    X  =   )        C  $3C  XXXX@-D  1  ڀ(2$ f!            (43  x#.Label3Labels, 3-Down FDAP, for HP LaserJet 0          \Rx\    \Rx AL MAIL \  x:EnvelopeDJetEnvelope #10, for DeskJet Plus    \RV,\   X `  X |6Label3DJetLabels, 3-Down for HP DeskJet Plus    \R+\nd+pz HxX,r,n~2Label3iiLabels, 3-Down, FDAP for HP Series II    \R >\   X   X   X      )         (4$  _@88  1  ڄ  (;3$2#  0  .3  0  (2$ f!            (43  (b$0  0` (#(#2#   .3  0 ` (#` (# dTable_A d$35;AGMU]c1I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)(!2S$ f!            (43  Ӏ  0  3|x <6X9`("Courier 10cpiXx6X@8;X@(f$           C  $3CHP LaserJet 1200 Series PCL 603#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a). .9.habƒ U(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular  S$         (4$Ӏ  1    _XXjԀAllstatutoryreferencesaretothePenalCodeunlessotherwiseindicated.#j.##XQX#   i)*+ (_2623  ..*G+G (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ../%` ` hp x /   *8+8 (_24  ," hp x ,23  ..," hp x ,  *5+5 (_23 ` ) hp x )23  ..) hp x ) ` *2+2 (_22  &hhp x &23  ..&hhp x &  */+/ (_21  #p x #23  ..#p x #  *,+, (_20 h  p x 23  .. p x h *)+) (_19  pp x 23  ..pp x   *&+& (_18   x 23  .. x   *AA (_17  5+ ` hp x 523  Ԁ5+ ` hp x 5  *GG (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ/%` ` hp x /   *88 (_15  ," hp x ,23  Ԁ," hp x ,  *55 (_14 ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ) hp x ) ` *22 (_13  &hhp x &23  Ԁ&hhp x &  *// (_12  #p x #23  Ԁ#p x #  *,, (_11 h  p x 23  Ԁ p x h *)) (_10  pp x 23  Ԁpp x   (&& &_9   x 23  Ԁ x   (AA &_8  5+ ` hp x 523  5+ ` hp x 5  (GG &_7   /%` ` hp x /23  /%` ` hp x /   (88 &_6  ," hp x ,23  ," hp x ,  (55 &_5 ` ) hp x )23  ) hp x ) ` (22 &_4  &hhp x &23  &hhp x &  (// &_3  #p x #23  #p x #  (,, &_2 h  p x 23   p x h ()) &_1  pp x 23  pp x   &&& $_   x 23   x   0AA.Normal  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition T  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(hh&H1  5+ ` hp x 5      5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H2  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H3  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H4  5+ ` hp x 5 XXX 5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H5  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H6  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  2DD0Address  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKd<6X9`(Courier NewKSe\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard Kd<6X9`(Courier NewKSe\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted  /%  ,Kk %#/Kd<6X9`(Courier NewKSe\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/  <:zBottom of 7Z(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?f%2A`Arial?  Se\  `&Times New RomanS7[(X75+ ` hp x 5  &  d dY)1dxd'dxd<:zTop of For7](X7    5+ ` hp x 5?f%2A`Arial?  Se\  `&Times New RomanS7[(X75+ ` hp x 5  Y)2dxd0KS.SampleKd<6X9`(Courier NewKSe\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKd<6X9`(Courier NewKSe\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB  <6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman%2A`ArialStarPageciteas((Cite as: 21 Cal.4th 335, *340)(%$  1  (9 Z(Times New Roman  x S$         (4$Ӏ  2    _ԀjXXXXjXjXSection803(g)alsoincludedadditionalfactualconditions,notdirectlyrelevant  totheexpostfactoissuehere,concerningthenatureofthechargedconductand  corroboratingevidence.#jXXj0##XQXXjX#http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=++++1.0&vr=2.0&DB=586&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1881021601&ReferencePosition=223(O$ f!            (43  _  &XXXX&X&X@aaINTHECOURTOFAPPEALOFTHESTATEOFCALIFORNIA  @ _______APPELLATEDISTRICT,@@#DIVISION_____  * ddd Xdd Xdd X(#(#,dt ,Ydd +  :'   :______________________, 8  ̀Petitioner, 8  ̀OnHabeasCorpus. 6,!8  6No._______ 8   RelatedAppeal,No._______ 8  (_______County 8  Super.CourtNo.______) 8  -#!8    -  PETITIONFORWRITOFHABEASCORPUS H TO:0 @ THEHONORABLEPRESIDINGJUSTICEANDASSOCIATEJUSTICESOF H THECOURTOFAPPEALOFTHESTATEOFCALIFORNIA,_______APPELLATE H DISTRICT,DIVISION_____: H     Petitioner__________respectfullypetitionsthisCourtforawritofhabeascorpuson H thegroundthatthestatuteoflimitationsapplicabletothechargedsexoffensesexpiredprior  tothe1994enactmentofPenalCodesection803(g)' i%  1      ׀andtheapplicationofsection803(g) H toreviveprosecutionofthesetimebarredoffensesviolatedtheexpostfactoclauseunder   theU.S.SupremeCourtsopinionin_Stogner_v.California(June26,2003)___U.S.___, H" 2003WL21467073.Bythisverifiedpetition,petitionersetsforththefollowingfactsand  $ causesfortheissuanceofthewrit: H"&  (#34"3"  3 2#  1  .3  0    ݀Petitionerisunlawfullyheldincustodyat__________StatePrisonbytheWarden, #( andbytheDirectoroftheDepartmentofCorrections.3 ݌H% *(#(# Ќ  "3"  3D 2#  2  .3  0    ݀Petitionerisconfinedpursuanttoajudgmentofimprisonmentof____yearsrendered &", on_______in______CountySuperiorCourt,No.______,Hon.__________,Judge.3D q ݌H(#.(#(# Ќ  "3"  3 2#  3  .3  0    ݀Inthatproceeding,petitionerwaschargedwith___________,inaninformationfiled )%0 ______.On________,petitionerenteredapleatoCounts__,allegedoffenses H+&2 undersection___.(CT___)On________,thetrialcourtsentencedpetitionertoa  termof__years.(CT___)3 ݌0(#(# Ќ  "3"  32#  4  .3  0    Petitionernoticedatimelyappealfromthejudgment,andthatappealiscurrently  pendingbeforethisCourt,A______.However,nocertificateofprobablecausehas 0  issuedauthorizingdirectreviewof constitutional,jurisdictional,orothergrounds   goingtothelegalityoftheproceedings,(1237.5),andthetimeforapplyingfor 0   suchacertificatehasexpired.3݌ (#(# Ќ  "3"  3{2#  5  .3  0    Petitionerisentitledtoissuanceofawritofhabeascorpusvacatinghis 0  convictionsbecausethoseconvictionswereobtainedinviolationoftheexpost   factoclauseoftheU.S.Constitution .Asindicatedonthefaceoftheinformation 3  (CT*;copyattachedasEx.A),theoffensesallegedlyoccurredon______.Atthe   timeoftheallegedoffenses,theapplicablestatuteoflimitationswas___years. 9 Consequently, thestatuteoflimitationshadexpiredpriortoJanuary1,1994,the   effectivedateofsection803(g), whichpurportedtorevivethestatesauthorityto ? prosecuteotherwisetimebarredsexualoffenses.Becausepetitionerwasnotsubject  toprosecutionforthealleged19__offenses,duetoexpirationofthestatuteof E limitations,asofthetimeofenactmentofsection803(g),theapplicationofthat   statutetoauthorizeprosecutionandconvictionofpetitionerforthoseallegedoffenses E" violatedthefederalexpostfactoclauseundertheU.S.SupremeCourtsjustissued $ opinionin_Stogner_v.California(June26,2003)___U.S.___,2003WL21467073.3{݌E!&(#(# Ќ  "3"  32#  6  .3  0    Petitionerisentitledtohabeascorpusrelieffortheexpostfactoviolationbecausehe "( doesnothaveaspeedyandadequateremedyatlaw.Despitethependencyofhis E$* directappeal,A_____,thatappealdoesnotprovideaspeedyandadequateremedyfor %!, thisfundamentalconstitutionalviolationbecausethelimitationsbartotheconviction E'". offensesof_____isnot_reviewable_Ԁinapostpleaappealduetotheabsenceofa ($0  certificateofprobablecause.3݌E*%2(#(# Ќ  "3"  32#  7  .3  0    Theviolationisproperly_reviewable_Ԁonhabeascorpusbecause,underwellestablished   Californialaw,aviolationoftheapplicablestatuteoflimitationsisajurisdictional 0 defect,andtheerrorisnotwaivedbyapleaorbyfailuretoperfectanappealonthat  ground.Becausejurisdictionalerrorssuchasthisarenotsubjecttotheusual 0  limitationsbarringhabeasreviewofclaimswhichcouldhavebeenraisedonappeal,   theviolationisproperlycognizableviathispetitionforwritofhabeascorpus.3݌0  (#(# Ќ  "3"  32#  8  .3  0    Habeascorpusreliefisalsoappropriateontheadditionalandindependentgrounds   thattheclaimreliesonachangeinthelawandthattheexpostfactoviolation 0  representsfundamentalconstitutionalerrorforthereasonsstatedin_Stogner_Ԁv.   California.3L݌0 (#(# Ќ  "3"  3K 2#  9  .3  0    Becausethe__yearstatuteoflimitationsapplicableatthetimeofthe___offenses  hadexpiredpriortotheenactmentofsection803(g),petitionerscasecomessquarely 0 withintheexpostfactoholdingof_Stogner_Ԁv.California.Accordingly,petitioner  respectfullyrequeststhisCourttovacatethoseconvictions,toorderdismissalofthe 0 informationwithprejudice,andtoorderpetitionersimmediatereleasefromcustody.3K x ݌(#(# Ќ  "3 "  3=#2#  10  .3  0    Petitionerscontinuingimprisonmentonchargeswhichhadbecometimebarredprior 0 totheenactmentofsection803(g)representsanongoingviolationoftheexpostfacto   clause.BecausetheU.S.SupremeCourtsopinionin_Stogner_conclusivelyresolves 0" thelegalissuesandbecausetherearenofactualquestions(sincethelimitationsbar $ appearsonthefaceoftheinformation),petitionerrespectfullypraysthisCourtto 0!& consideranddecidethishabeaspetitiononanexpeditedbasis.Consequently, "( petitionerrequeststhisCourttobypassanyroundof informalbriefingonthehabeas 0$* petitionandtoproceedimmediatelytoissuanceofthewritofhabeascorpusoran %!, ordertoshowclause(_OSC_).Additionally,petitionerrequeststhisCourttosetan 0'". expeditedscheduleforthereturntothe_OSC_Ԁorwritandforpromptdispositionofthe ($0  petition.(See#&XX&Q#&X&XԀ1475.)Pendingfinaldispositionofthepetition,petitioner 0*%2 respectfullyrequestthattheCourtorderhimreleasedonbailoronhisown  recognizance,asauthorizedbysection1476.3=#j#݌0(#(#   "3 "  3)2#  11  .3  0    PetitionerherebyincorporatesbyreferencetheattachedMemorandumofPointsand  Authoritiesinsupportofthispetitionandtheattachedexhibits.3)*݌0 (#(# Ќ  "3 "  3K+2#  12  .3  0    Asstatedabove,petitionerhasnospeedyandadequateremedyatlawforthe   constitutionalandjurisdictionalviolationsallegedhere.3K+x+݌0  (#(# Ќ  "3 "  3,2#  13  .3  0    Nopriorpetitionforwritofhabeascorpushasbeenfiledbypetitioneroron   petitioner'sbehalf.3,,݌0 (#(# Ќ    WHEREFORE,petitionerrespectfullyrequeststhatthisCourt:   ! ! (#33 a.0  Takejudicialnoticeoftherecordinpetitioner'spendingdirectappeal,No.A______;0 (#(# b.0  Orderrespondenttoshowcausewhypetitionerisnotentitledtothereliefrequested;(#(# c.0  Orderanexpeditedscheduleforfilingofrespondentsreturnandconsiderationand 0 dispositionofthepetition;(#(# d.0  Orderpetitionerreleasedonbailoronhisownrecognizancependingfinaldisposition 0 ofthepetition;(#(# e.0  Afterfullconsiderationofthepetitionandreturnandanyotherpleadings,vacatethe 0 judgmentandsentenceimposedonpetitionerin__________CountySuperiorCourt   No.______andorderpetitionerimmediatelydischargedfromanycustodyorother 0" restraintsimposedpursuanttothatjudgment;$(#(# f.0  OrdertheinformationinSuperiorCourtNo.______dismissedwithprejudice;and0!&(#(# g.0  Grantsuchfurtherreliefasisappropriateintheinterestsofjustice,includingany "( otherordersnecessarytoensurepetitionerspromptreleasefromcustody.0$*(#(# 0  Foralltheforegoingreasons,________respectfullyrequestthisCourttograntthe %!, petitionforwritofhabeascorpusandtoorderpetitionersrelease.0'".(#(# Dated:_______,2003   h   0  Respectfullysubmitted,($0(#(#    `     h     (#(#K(#   `     h      p AttorneyforPetitioner  +'3 @$ VERIFICATION     I,___________________,declare: - }   IamamemberoftheBaroftheStateofCalifornia.Iamtheattorneyforpetitioner   ________________,whoisconfinedandrestrainedofhislibertyat__________________ - }  StatePrison,in___________,California.      Iamauthorizedtofilethispetitionforwritofhabeascorpusonhisbehalf.Imake -}  thisverificationbecausepetitionerisincarceratedinacountydifferentfromthatofmylaw   officeandbecausethesemattersaremorewithinmyknowledgethanhis. -}    Ihavereadtheforegoingpetitionforwritofhabeascorpus.Ideclarethatallthe  mattersallegedherearetrueofmyownpersonalknowledgeoraresupportedbytherecord -} inpetitioner'sdirectappeal,No._______,orbytheattachedexhibits.    IdeclareunderpenaltyofperjuryunderthelawsoftheStateofCaliforniathatthe -} foregoingistrueandcorrect.    Executedon_____________,2003,at______________,California. -} 6   `     h     (#(#K(#   `     h      p AttorneyforPetitioner  " (/g@  MEMORANDUMOFPOINTSANDAUTHORITIES    I. 0  HABEASCORPUSISTHEAPPROPRIATEREMEDYFORTHEEXPOST  FACTOVIOLATION,BECAUSEPETITIONERHASNOSPEEDYAND  ADEQUATEREMEDYATLAWANDPETITIONERSCONVICTIONSFOR  TIMEBARREDOFFENSESAREVOIDFORLACKOFJURISDICTION.  (#(#   ?+ ` hp x X?e&Whileordinarilyhabeascorpusisnotasubstituteforappeal[citation]#&eY?#e&,thiscourthas   discretiontoissuethewritifitbelievesanappealisnotadequateorifapromptdisposition & v  isrequiredintheinterestsofjustice[citations]#&e?#e&.Thisissuchacase(#&e@#e&InreDuran(1974)   #&eRA#38_Cal.App_.3d632,635.) Thisisparticularlysowhenthecaseinvolvesaconstitutional &v  issue.[Citation.](Inre_Quackenbush_(1996)41_Cal.App_.4th1301,1305.))e&     #&eB#Althoughpetitionersdirectappealfromthejudgmentiscurrentlypendingbeforethis &v Court,A_______,thatappealdoesnotprovideaspeedyandadequateremedyatlawforthe  statuteoflimitations/expostfactoclaimraisedhere.Becausenocertificateofprobable &v causehasissued,these constitutional,[and]jurisdictional...groundsgoingtothelegality  oftheproceedings,arenotcognizableinthatpostpleaappeal.(1237.5.)Thetimefor &v petitionertoapplyforsuchacertificateorforthetrialcourttoissueacertificatehasexpired.  UndertheCaliforniaSupremeCourtsrecentopinionin_In_ԀreChavez(2003)30#&XX&(#Cal.4th&X&XԀ643, &v neitherthisCourtnorthetrialcourthasauthoritytoallowanuntimelyapplicationfora  certificateofprobableclause.NormaythisCourtexcusesection1237.5'srequirementof &v! suchacertificateforreviewoftheseissuesondirectappeal.(Ibid.)Consequently,petitioner  # hasnoavailableremedyatlaw. &"v%   Despitesection1237.5'sapparentpreclusionofdirectreviewofthisconstitutionaland #' jurisdictionalerrorinthependingdirectappeal,theunderlyingstatuteoflimitationsissue &%v ) isnotsubjecttoforfeitureorimplicitwaiver,evenbyentryofaguiltyplea..TheCalifornia &!+ SupremeCourtrecentlyreiterateditslongstandingrulerecognizingthejurisdictionalnature &(v#- ofthestatuteoflimitationsandtheinapplicabilityofwaiver/forfeiturebars: )$/ Sy+&&+v& S (43?+ ` hp x X?e&8  Incriminalcases"inCaliforniathestatuteoflimitationsconstitutesa y+&1 substantiveratherthanaproceduralrightwhichis% g #&eK#%gbL% h %hLe&notwaived[fn.]byfailure y,'2 toassertitatthepleadingstage....[_I]t_Ԁisnowwellsettledthataconviction,  evenifbasedonapleaofguilty,issubjecttocollateral[ordirect]attackif  thechargewasoriginallybarredbytheapplicablelimitationperiod,"...  [Citation.]#&eL#e&Theruleisareflectionofthefundamentalprincipleofourlawthat  "thepowerofthecourtstoproceed"i.e.,theirjurisdictionoverthesubject  mattercannotbeconferredbythemereactofalitigant,whetheritamountto   consent,waiver,orestoppel[citations],andhencethatthelackofsuch   jurisdictionmayberaisedforthefirsttimeonappeal.'[Citations](Peoplev.   Williams(1999)#&eN#e&Ԁ21Cal.4th335,339340,emphasisadded.)    #&eP#K S  Thus,undertheexpresstermsofWilliamandpreviouscases,aconvictioninviolation S  oftheapplicablestatuteoflimitationsis subjecttocollateral...attack!i.e.,toahabeas   corpuspetition!evenafteraguiltyplea.(Williams,supra,atp.340.)Additionally, S  becausealimitationserrorrepresentsa lackof...jurisdiction(asalsoreiteratedinWilliams   (ibid.)),theerrorcomessquarelywithintheCaliforniaSupremeCourtsexceptionstothe S usualrulesbarringhabeasconsiderationofclaimsthatwereorcouldhavebeenraisedon  appeal.(InreHarris(1993)5Cal.4th813,836841[ lackoffundamentaljurisdiction S and inexcessofjurisdictionexceptionstohabeasrestrictions].)    Williamsexpressendorsementof collateralattackonlimitationsbarredconvictions S andHarrisauthorizationofhabeasreviewofjurisdictionalerrorsare_dispositive_Ԁof  petitionersentitlementtohabeasrelief.Moreover,independentlyofthosegrounds, S petitionernotesthatthe_Stogner_/limitationserroralsocomeswithinHarrisotherexceptions  allowinghabeasreviewinlieuofadirectappeal.First,_Stogner_Ԁv.Californiarepresentsa  S!  changeinthelaw(Harris,supra,5Cal.4thatpp.841)becauseitoverruledtheCalifornia !# SupremeCourtsopinioninPeoplev.Frazer(1999)21Cal.4th737,whichhadupheldthe #S% constitutionalityofsection803(g).(SeeStognerv.California,supra,2003WL21467073 $' atpp.**68,13[criticizingFrazer].) &S!)   Finally,theerroralsocomeswithinHarrisexceptionfor fundamentalconstitutional '"+ error.(Harris,supra,5Cal.4thatpp.829836.)AstheStognermajorityexplainedin )S$-  strikingdownsection803(g): *%/ 8  California'slawsubjectsanindividualsuchas_Stogner_Ԁtoprosecutionlong   aftertheStatehas,ineffect,grantedanamnesty,tellinghimthatheis"at  libertytoreturntohiscountry...andthatfromhenceforthhemayceaseto  preservetheproofsofhisinnocence,"[Citations].4M,#O  5  6\#O\  7,\ԀItretroactivelywithdraws  acompletedefensetoprosecutionafterithasalreadyattached,anditdoesso  inamannerthatallowstheStatetowithdrawthisdefenseatwillandwith   respecttoindividualsalreadyidentified.[Citation.]"Unfair"seemstousafair   characterization.(_Stogner_Ԁv.California,supra,2003WL21467073atp.*17.)[      Thatdescriptionofthefundamentalunfairnessof _reviv[ing_]along-forbidden 0   prosecution(_Stogner_,supra,atp.*16)bringsthisviolationsquarelywithinthecategoryof    constitutionalerror[which]isbothclearandfundamentalandstrikesattheheartofthetrial 0  process.(Harris,supra,5Cal.4thatp.834.)     Onallthesegrounds,petitionersclaimofjurisdictionalandconstitutionalerroris 0 properlycognizableonhabeascorpus.   (/g  ( (   II.0  BECAUSETHEAPPLICABLESTATUTEOFLIMITATIONSEXPIRED  PRIORTOTHEENACTMENTOFSECTION803(g),THEEXPOSTFACTO  CLAUSEBARREDPETITIONERSPROSECUTION,ANDPETITIONERIS  ENTITLEDTOIMMEDIATERELIEFUNDER_STOGNER_Ԁv.CALIFORNIA.(#(# fb  Aninformationfiledon_____chargedpetitionerwithviolationsofsection____, all % u occurringbetween_____and_____ (CT__,copyattachedasExhibitA.)Atthetimeof   thechargedoffenses,theapplicablestatuteoflimitationswas___years.#&XX&F#(&X&XԀ____)The + {  explicitlyacknowledgedthatthelimitationsperiodundersection#&XX&e#&X&XԀ____hadexpired.The   informationfurtherallegedthattheprosecutionwasundertakenpursuanttoPenalCode +{  section803(g).Asdiscussedbelow,section803(g)purportedtoauthorizeprosecutionfor   timebarredsexualoffensessuchasthese,providedthechargeswerefiledwithinoneyear +{ oftheallegedvictimsreportoftheaccusationtoalawenforcementagency.k i%  2      #&XX&4f#&X&XԀThe  informationherepleadedfactualallegations_assertedly_Ԁbringingthecasewithinthetermsof +{ section803(g).(CT___)    On_______,thejuryconvictedpetitionerof______countsof_____.On________, +{ thetrialcourtsentencedpetitionertoatermof____years.    Asthechronologyabovereflects,thestatechargedpetitionerwiththesesexual +{ offensesover___yearsaftertheirallegedcommission,eventhoughthestatuteoflimitations   forsuchcrimesin____was___years.Mostimportantlyforpresentpurposes,that__year +{" statuteoflimitationsexpiredlongbeforeJanuary1,1994,theoperativedateofthelegislation  $ supposedlyrevivingthestatesauthoritytoprosecuteandpunishtheseoffenses. +"{&   In_Stogner_Ԁv.California,supra,2003WL21467073,theUnitedStatesSupreme #( CourtheldthatapplicationofCaliforniasPenalCodesection803,subdivision(g)(enacted +%{ * in1994andamendedin1996),to_Stogner_scaseandtothoselikeStogners,violatedthe &!, federalconstitutionsExPostFactoClause.Section803,subdivision(g), authorizes +({#. prosecutionforcriminalactscommittedmanyyearsbeforehand!andwheretheoriginal )$0 limitationsperiodhasexpired!aslongasprosecutionbeginswithinayearofavictimsfirst ++{&2 complainttothepolice.(Id.)Like_ Stogner_ ,petitionerwaschargedwithcrimesallegedto  havebeencommitteddecadesearlierand,likeStogner, Californiacouldnothave 0 prosecutedpetitioner,inasmuchasthethenapplicable___yearstatuteoflimitations  governingthecrimesofwhichpetitionerwasaccused(andconvicted)hadexpired___years 0  ormore beforethepresentprosecutionwasbrought.(Id.)     TheUnitesStatesSupremeCourtruledthatsection803(g) threatensthekindofharm 0   that,inthisCourtsview,theExPostFactoClauseseekstoavoid.LongagotheCourt   pointedoutthattheClauseprotectslibertybypreventinggovernmentsfromenactingstatutes 0  withmanifestlyunjustandoppressiveretroactiveeffects....[_ E]xtending_ Ԁalimitations   periodaftertheStatehasassuredamanthathehasbecomesafefromitspursuit..seemsto 0  mostofusunfairanddishonest.[citationomit.]Insuchacase,thegovernmenthasrefused  toplaybyitsownrules,[cit.omit.].Ithasdeprivedthedefendantofthefairwarning, 0 [cit.omit.]thatmighthaveledhimtopreserveexculpatoryevidence.[cit.omit].Anda  Constitutionthatpermitssuchanextension,byallowinglegislaturestopickandchoosewhen 0 toactretroactively,risksbotharbitraryandpotentiallyvindictivelegislation,anderosion  oftheseparationsofpowers.[cit.omit.].(Id.,atp.5576) 0   The_ Stogner_ CourtfounditsinterpretationoftheClauseasapplyingtothe   resurrectionofexpiredstatutesoflimitations literallywithinthecategoricaldescriptionsof 0" expostfactolawssetforthbyJusticeChasemorethan200yearsagoinCalderv.Bull $ [(1798)3Dall.386,1_ L.Ed_ .648]andinthevirtuallyunanimousopinionsof numerous 0!& legislators,[state]courtsandcommentatorsdatingbacktotheCivilWar.(Id.,atpp.5576 "( 5577)ItfoundtheCaliforniaSupremeCourts_ Frazer_ opiniontobetheanomaly,pointedly 0$* observingthat [_ t]he_ Ԁdissentreferstonocase,outsideofCalifornia,thathasheld,oreven %!, suggested,thatlawsresurrectingtimebarredprosecutionsare not expostfacto.(Id.,atp. 0'". 5580) ($0   Petitionerscasecomessquarelywithin_ Stogner_ sexpostfactoholdingbecause,as 6*%2 summarizedabove,theapplicablestatuteoflimitationsexpiredbeforetheenactmentof +'4 section803(g).Norarethereanyfactualquestionsorambiguitiesrequiringresolution.The 6-(6 limitationsbarappearsonthefaceoftheaccusatorypleading.Indeed,theinformation .*8 acknowledgedtheexpirationofthestatuteoflimitationsandexpresslyrelieduponsection  803(g),theverystatutevoidedin_Stogner_,asthebasisforthisprosecution.After_Stogner_, 0 therecanbequestionthatpetitionerisentitledtoimmediaterelief,andreleasefromhis  unlawfulimprisonment.  0   III.0  BECAUSEPETITIONERSENTITLEMENTTORELIEFISCLEARUNDER  _STOGNER_,THISCOURTSHOULDORDEREXPEDITEDFILINGOFA  RETURNANDSHOULDORDERPETITIONERRELEASEDONBAILOR  HISOWNRECOGNIZANCEPENDINGFINALDISPOSITIONOFTHE  PETITION. (#(# !  Asoutlinedintheprecedingsection,becausepetitionersconvictionwasonlymade   possiblebysection803(g)sunconstitutionalrevivalofthestatuteoflimitations,petitioners & v entitlementtoreliefunder_Stogner_Ԁv.Californiaisclearcut.NowthattheU.S.Supreme    Courthasstruckdownthatstatute,everyadditionaldaythatpetitionerspendsinprisonis &v   manifestlyunjustandoppressiveandrepresentsanaffronttofundamentalconceptsof   justice.(See(_Stogner_,supra,2003WL21467073atp.*3.)Withtheconstitutionalissue &v  nowdefinitivelyresolved,thereisnolongeranyroomfordebateabouthisentitlementto  reliefandhencenocauseforanydelay.Consequently,thispetitionpresentsthisCourtwith &v thetaskofensuringfinaldispositionofpetitionerscaseonthemostexpeditedbasis  possible. &v   Habeascorpushashistoricallybeenthepreferredvehicleinsituationssuchasthis  wherethereisanurgentneedtosecureadefendantsimmediatereleasefromcustody.As &v theCaliforniaSupremeCourthasexplained,thoughhabeascourtrequiresanumberof  formalprocedures, S?+ ` hp x X?e& &v  8  Thisdoesnotmeanthatobtainingreliefthroughhabeascorpusproceedings y! mustbesloworcumbersome.Iftheclaimassertedinthepetitionhasapparent y " meritandthereissomeurgencybecausethepetition,forexample,alleges y!# entitlementtoreleaseonbailorchallengesthevalidityofacontemptorder,the y"$ courtmayrequirethecustodianorrealpartyininteresttosubmitthereturn y#% tothewritorordertoshowcauseaslittleas24hoursafterbeingservedwith y$& thepetition.(Pen.Code,#&e&#e&#&e#e&1475,pars.34.)Pendingtheoutcomeofthehabeas y% ' corpusproceeding,thecourtmayorderthatthepetitionerbetemporarily y&!( releasedfromcustody.(See#&eF#e&id.#&eS#e&,#&e#e&#&eߋ#e&1476[courtmay"admit[thepetitioner]to y'") bail,iftheoffenseisbailable"][Citations].(Peoplev.Romero(1994)8 y(#* Cal.4th728,744,emphasisadded.)y)$+   #&e&#  PetitionerrequeststhisCourttotakeeachofthe SӀstepsoutlinedinRomerotoexpedite *&, dispositionofthematter.First,becausetheinformationonitsfacerevealsthatthecharged L,'. offensesweretimebarredpriorto1994,therecanbenoquestionbutthatpetitionerhas -)0 establisheda primafaciecaseforreliefunder_Stogner_Ԁv.California.Consequently,this L/*2 Courtshoulddispensewithsolicitingany informalresponsetothehabeaspetitionand  shouldproceedimmediatelywithissuanceofanordertoshowcause(_OSC_)orawritof 0 habeascorpustobringpetitionerbeforethecourt.Pursuanttosection1475,thisCourt  shouldorderrespondenttofileitsreturnwithinonecourtdayofthefilingandserviceofthis 0  petitionandshouldsetthematterforhearingattheearliestavailabledate.Finally,pending   thathearingandfinaldispositionofthepetition,thisCourtshouldorderpetitionerreleased 0   onhisownrecognizanceoronbail,asauthorizedbysection1476.(Seee&Romero,supra,8   Cal.4thatp.744#&e#.) 0  N@% CONCLUSION       Becausepetitionersconvictionwasobtainedpursuanttosection803(g)s  unconstitutionalrevivalofthestatuteoflimitations,_Stogner_Ԁv.CaliforniarequiresthisCourt .~ totakeallstepsnecessarytoensurepetitionerspromptrelease.Accordingly,asoutlined  intheprecedingsections,petitionerrespectfullyasksthisCourt:1)tograntpetitioner .~ releasedonhisownrecognizanceoronbailpendingfinaldispositionofthispetition;2)to  orderrespondenttoshowcauseonanexpeditedbasis(withinonecourtday)whypetitioner .~ isnotentitledtoreliefunder_Stogner_Ԁv.California;3)tosetthematterforhearingatthe   earliestpossibledate;and4)tovacatepetitionersconvictionandjudgmentandtoorderthe .~" underlyinginformationdismissedwithprejudice.  $ Dated:_______,2003   h   Respectfullysubmitted, .#~'    `     h   (#(#K(##&XX&h#&X&X   `     h   AttorneyforPetitioner#&XX&#