WPCgK  i[γ7V+i/3yd68|K"~˅\VyxCX_`V)bLip @9np #D@)C;pd8xPFDz$B޾áN}!: Cbl?938j6aG_4'ٕܶzZ28:LFSYNn""U=G~&._#2U6N %I 0(O ^ w w 4   m N : 0 N U@M U+N T T/ : 0l 0D) wm 0U 09 0 0 0 0Y 0  0 0` 0 0 0 0J 0 0 0? 0 0o 0 0 0 0< 0 0! 0(" 0" 0R# 0# 0$ 0L% 0> & 0H& 0@' 0"( 0) 0) 0* 0+ 0d, 026- 0h- 0:d. 0Y. 0_. 0 V/ 0`0 01 B*3 D/4 D+A4 0l4 D/r6 06 06o7 07 0:8 0^8 0<E9 1e9U69U >:U*Z:U>: B:: 1u: 72j;*;>T[C 0CvI@'KHP LaserJet 6L/LAPTOP-FDAP/Session 24,,,,0(A Z6Times New Roman Regular($$2 wf2t4.dll3|x Uhttp://www.adi-sandiego.com.(O$(A Z(Times New Roman (9 Z6Times New Roman Regularhttp://www.adi-sandiego.com/articles.htmlhttp://www.adi-sandiego.com/articles.htmlmailto:nfa@adi-sandiego.com,((3$ !      0  (#$  0   m $    1    _T+++rialcounselispresumptivelyresponsibleforsuperiorcourtfilings,butappellate  counselshouldmakesureappropriatestepsaretakenbymaintainingcommunicationand  generallymonitoringtheprocess.Ifafterdiligentinquiryitbecomesapparentthattrial  counselisnotgoingtobefollowingthroughinameritoriouscase,pleasecontactADI.  Wecanexploreotherpossibilities.#++s#++#++T#++ԀAppellatecounselshouldbeawarethatcompensation  forproceedingsinthesuperiorcourtnormallycomesfromthatcourt,nottheCourtof    Appeal#++##++#.UseofADIsamplepleadingsmayallowcounseltoprepareor ghostwrite  pleadingsinminimaltime.*+ (_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*CODEKQ<6X9`(Courier NewKSR\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard KQ<6X9`(Courier NewKSR\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted  /%  ,Kk %#/KQ<6X9`(Courier NewKSR\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/  <:zBottom of 7F(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?S%2A`Arial?  SR\  `&Times New RomanS7G(X75+ ` hp x 5  &  d dE)1dxd'dxd<:zTop of For7I(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?S%2A`Arial?  SR\  `&Times New RomanS7G(X75+ ` hp x 5  E)2dxd0KS.SampleKQ<6X9`(Courier NewKSR\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKQ<6X9`(Courier NewKSR\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB   !"#$%& 35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.<6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial%\  `&Times New Roman d  e 3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)Wi)  $    2    _Thelawofthecasedoctrineisinapplicablewhentherehasbeenanintervening  SupremeCourtdecision,whichboththetrialcourtandtheCourtofAppealmustfollow.  (Peoplev.Sequeira(1982)137Cal.App.3d898,900902;seealsoInreSaldana(1997)  57Cal.App.4th620,624626.)Inotherwords,underthesecircumstancesthebinding  staredecisiseffectoftherulingsofhighercourtsonlowercourts(AutoEquitySales,Inc.  v.SuperiorCourt(1962)57Cal.2d450) trumpsthelawofthecase,whichisadoctrine   ofgeneralpolicyandpractice,notjurisdiction.  $    4    _Thisorderisnotpublishedandthusisprobablynotcitabletopersuadeacourtto  usetheremedy.(Cal.RulesofCourt,rule977(a);seeInre_Sena_(2001)94Cal.App.4th  836,838-9[unpublishedCourtofAppealordershavenoAutoEquitystaredecisiseffect];  seealso_TBG_ԀInsuranceServicesCorporationv.SuperiorCourt(_Zieminski_)(2002)96  Cal.App.4th443,447,fn.2[unpublishedsuperiorcourtorders];comparePeoplev.  _Duvall_(1995)9Cal.4th464,478,fn.5[lackofpublishedcaselawonexceptionsto   sufficiencyofhabeascorpusreturnexplainedbyfacttheissueisusuallydecidedbyorder   ratherthanopinion,asillustratedinseveralSupremeCourtminutes].)Wementionthe   orderonlyforcounselsinformalconsiderationinchoosingremedies.http://www.adi-sandiego.com/articles.htmlV& 8Document[7]Document Style0..0` ..` Ԁ     <.. `` ..`  1 1c. ECTIONtywhenfacywhenfac...̜p..pp..ptDocuDocuDocuyrs  a        XX PPPYn Snd Pnd P nd P Technica ica ca 9ca 9a 9a 9 9hecourtha  reviewwaseviewwasounselwhounselwhonselwhoȌ  Hnz6H68dddd<xlxx~RG:  J<Jfn4hX`<nnn' fe \XHTH`6Hnnnn.n` &$` HH  $    3    _Ifthedefendantisrightupagainstthestatuteoflimitations,therecallrequest  shouldbefiledaspartofahabeascorpuspetition(asinMutch)toensurethefederal  clockistolledimmediatelyanddoesnotexpirewhiletheCourtofAppealisconsidering  therequest. Cal.AppIn InBordeau !  _     8+dd8  VWPEOPLEV.HOWARD:ALERT  RecklessEvasionofPoliceOffenseUnderVehicleCodeSection2800.2  InvalidatedasaBasisforSecondDegreeFelonyMurder   ___________________________      OnJanuary27theCaliforniaSupremeCourtdecidedPeoplev.Howard(2005)34   Cal.4th1129,holdingthatrecklessevasionofpolice(_Veh_.Code,2800.2)isnotan    inherentlydangerousfelonyandthusdoesnotqualifyasthepredicatefelonyforsecond    degreefelonymurder.TheHowarddecisionappliesatleasttoactscommittedafter1998   andarguablyearlier.Itaffectsdefendantswithcurrentlyactiveappealsandalsothose   whoseappealshaveconcluded.Thismemorandumismeanttoalertattorneystotheissue   andgivegeneralguidanceonhowtoraiseit._ADI_Ԁispostingsampleargumentsand   filingsonitswebsite,4   O  5  www.adisandiego.com.6 O.  7 X\ԀIthasalsodesignatedstaffattorneyNeil   _Auwarter_,asitsHowardcontactat_ADI_.(4  O  5  nfa@adisandiego.com,6 O  7 Ԁor(619)6960284,  ext.27.)     `     h      p   TheHowardDecision       Bywayofbackground,seconddegreefelonymurderisanonstatutory,court  maderulethatapersonisguiltyofseconddegreemurderwhenheorshecommitsa  homicideinthecommissionofanyfelony inherentlydangeroustohumanlife.A  felonyisinherentlydangerouswhenbyitsnatureitcannotbecommittedwithoutcreating  asubstantialriskofdeath.Thisdeterminationisbasedontheelementsoftheoffensein  theabstractandnotonthemannerofcommissioninaparticularcase.(SeePeoplev.  Howard,supra,34Cal.4thatp.1135,andcasescited.)    InHoward,thedefendantcausedafatalautomobileaccidentwhilefleeingfrom ! police.Beforethecollisionthedefendantdroveatexcessivespeeds,ranaredlightand " stopsigns,anddroveonthewrongsideoftheroad.Thedefendantwasconvictedof # seconddegreemurderandrecklessvehicularevasionofpolice(_Veh_.Code,2800.2). $  Jurorswereinstructedthatrecklessevasionisaninherentlydangerousfelonyanda % ! predicateoffenseforseconddegreefelonymurder.TheCourtofAppealaffirmedthe &!" judgment,rejectingthedefendantsargumentthatrecklessevasionisnotaninherently '"# dangerousfelony. (#$   TheCaliforniaSupremeCourtreversed.Itheldrecklessevasionisnotan *%& inherentlydangerousfelonybecause,undera1998amendmenttosection2800.2adding +&' subdivision(b),thecrimeisstatutorilydefinedtoincludeanyflightfromanofficerin ,'( whichthedrivercommitsthreetrafficviolationshavinga pointcountunderVehicle -()L Codesection12810.Section12810includesnumerouspointcounttrafficviolationsthat  donotendangerhumanlife,andsoitispossibletocommitaviolationofsection2800.2  withoutcreatingasubstantialriskofdeath.Thusviolationofsection2800.2cannotserve  asthepredicateforseconddegreefelonymurder.(Peoplev.Howard,supra,34Cal.4that  pp.11371139.)   ApplicabilityandRetroactivityofHoward      WhetherandhowHowardmaybeapplieddependsonthestageofthecaseandthe    dateoftheoffense.Thetopicisdiscussedinthe_ADI_Ԁarticleontakingadvantageof   favorablechangesinthelawat4 b O  5  http://www.adi-sandiego.com/articles.html6y O  7 Ԁandattorneys   areencouragedtocontacttheassigned_ADI_ԀstaffattorneyorNeil_Auwarter_Ԁforadditional   guidance.   A.  CasesNotYetFinalonAppeal    Howardisunquestionablyapplicabletocasesnotyetfinalonappeal.(Peoplev.  Garcia(1984)36Cal.3d539,549[decisionfindinganintentrequirementforfelony  murderspecialcircumstancesisretroactivetocrimescommittedbeforethedecision].)  Forretroactivitypurposes,+++appealsarenotfinaluntilthetimeforfilingapetitionfor  certiorarihasexpired.(S#++##++#ee++++Peoplev._Nasalga_(1996)12Cal.4th784,794,fn.5,andIn  rePine(1977)66_Cal.App_.3d593,594595.)#++##++ #Ԁ  B.0  FinalCasesWhereOffenseCommittedAfter1998AmendmenttoSection2800.2(#(#   Becauseitaffectsthe_definitional_Ԁelementsofthecrimeandisaninterpretationof  whatrecklessevasionunderthe1998amendmenttoVehicleCodesection2800.2has  alwaysmeantHowardisalmostsurelyapplicabletoallfinalcasesinwhichthe   underlyingoffensewascommittedafterJanuary1,1998.(Peoplev._Mutch_(1971)4 ! Cal.3d389,394396[Peoplev.Daniels(1969)71Cal.2d1129,whichrejectedprior " SupremeCourtdecisionsonthemeaningofPenalCodesection209kidnaping,isfully # retroactive];see_Fiore_Ԁv.White++++(2001)531U.S.225[violationoffederaldueprocessto $  punishdefendantunderalawdeclared,byasubsequentcourtdecision,tobeinapplicable % ! tohisconduct];#++##++#seealso++++_Bousley_Ԁv.UnitedStates(1998)523U.S.#++@##++_#614.) &!" C.  FinalCasesWhereOffenseCommittedBefore1998 (#$   TheholdinginHowardwasexpresslylimitedtooffensescommittedafterthe1998 *%& amendment.(Peoplev.Howard,supra,34Cal.4thatp.1137.)Thecourtdeclinedto +&' _decidethevalidityofPeoplev.Johnson(1993)15Cal.App.4th169,whichheldthepre  1998versionofsection2800.2describedaninherentlydangerousoffense.    AtthetimeJohnsonwasdecided,aviolationundersection2800.2couldbe  committedbydrivingwith willfulorwantondisregardforthesafetyofpersonsor  property.(Emphasisadded.)Johnsonfirstfoundthat wantondisregardnecessarily   includesdisregardforhumanlifeandthusactingwithsuchastateofmindisinherently   dangerous.(Peoplev.Johnson,supra,15Cal.App.4thatpp.173174.)Thisproposition   isprobablynolongertenableafterHoward.Alternatively,thecourtnotedthatfleeing   fromapursuingpeaceofficerwhosevehicleisdisplayinglightsandsirensinevitably   endangersthelifeofthepursuingofficer,evenifitdoesnotendangernonparticipantsin   thechase.(Id.atp.174.)JusticeBrownsdissentinHowardmadethesamepoint.   (Peoplev.Howard,supra,34Cal.4thatp.1140.)AlthoughthemajorityinHoward   discussedJohnsonandofcoursewasawareofthedissent,itdidnotmentionthis   argument,butfocuseditsanalysissolelyondangertononparticipants.    Arguably,themajoritysanalyticalapproach,togetherwithitsfailuretoapprove  Johnson,isanimplicitrejectionofthepositionthatdangertoofficersisaninevitable  featureofsection2800.2chases.Thustheremayberenewedvitalityinattacksonpre  1998convictions.   Prejudice     TheSupremeCourtinHowarddidnotdeterminewhethertheerrorinsubmitting  thecasetothejuryonthetheoryofseconddegreefelonymurderwasprejudicialinthat  case.Thejuryhadnotbeenexpresslyinstructedonimpliedmaliceseconddegree  murder,buttheinstructiononfelonymurderrequiredittofindthedefendantactedin   consciousdisregardforthesafetyofpersonsorproperty.(Peoplev.Howard,supra,34   Cal.4thatp.1134,andpp.1142,11451146,dis.opn.ofBaxter,J.)Notingtheparties ! hadnotbriefedthequestionofprejudice,theSupremeCourtremandedtotheCourtof " Appealforadeterminationofthatmatter.(Peoplev.Howard,supra,34Cal.4thatp. # 1139,fn.4.) $    Whentheprosecutionpresentsitscasetothejuryonalternatetheories,someof &!" whicharelegallycorrectandotherslegallyincorrect,andthereviewingcourtcannot '"# determinefromtherecordonwhichtheorytheverdictrested,theconvictionmustbe (#$ reversed.(++++Peoplev.Guiton(1993)4Cal.4th1116,11281129#++G-##++f-#;Peoplev.Green++++(1980) )$% 27Cal.3d1,6970#++.##++6.#,overruledonothergroundsinPeoplev.Martinez(2004)20Cal.4th *%& 225,239.)++++Chapmanv.California(1967)386U.S.18,#++R/#++#++3/#++governsaprejudice_determination +&' forfederalconstitutionalviolationssuchas,generally,instructionalerrorsaffectingthe  elementsofthecrime.(Peoplev.Flood(1998)18Cal.4th470#++/#++,491507;see,e.g.,  #++ 0#T++Peoplev.Sanchez(2001)#+T+1#T++86_Cal.App_.4th970,980;#+T+$2##++Q1#++++ԀPeoplev.Jones(2000)82  _Cal.App_.4th663,670;#++2#T++ԀPeoplev.#+T+3#T++ԀBaker(1999)74#+T+3#++_Cal.App_.4th243,253;#++=4#T++Peoplev.#+T+4#T++Ԁ#+T+5#R++Smith#+R+F5#R++  (1998)62_Cal.App_.4th1233,1238#+R+5#++#++2#++Ԁ[eachfindingfederalconstitutionalerrorinsubmission  ofinvalidfelonymurderpredicateoffenses].)#++i6#++#++'6#++     Prejudiceargumentsarepartofthesamplepleadingsonthe_ADI_Ԁwebsite.Counsel   shouldaddanycasespecificcircumstances,suchasprosecutorialemphasisonthefelony   murdertheoryduringclosingargument,juryquestionsonthetheory,lengthy   deliberations,etc.#++'7#++#++i7#++   #++49##++v9# &  RaisingHowardErrorforYourClient:ProceduralSteps      Ifthecaseisonappealandtheopeningbriefhasnotyetbeenfiled,raisingthis  '9issueisquitestraightforward.Butraisingitinlaterstagesoftheappeal,andpostappeal,  ismorecomplicatedandrequiresselectionofaproceduralvehicleappropriatetothe  stageofthecase.Toavoidanyquestionsofproceduraldefault,Howardshouldberaised  atthearlieststagepossible.Thetopicisdiscussedgenerallyinthe_ADI_Ԁarticleontaking  advantageoffavorablechangesinthelawat4  O  5  http://www.adi-sandiego.com/articles.html.6< O =  7 "7=Ԁ    Again,attorneysareencouragedtocontacttheassigned_ADI_ԀstaffattorneyorNeil  _Auwarter_Ԁforadditionalguidance.   A.  Pre_Remittitur_ԀCases     0  0` (#(#  1. ` Pre_AOB_:Ifanopeningbriefhasnotyetbeenfiled,briefingaHoward  issuepresentsnoproceduraldifficulty._ADI_Ԁispostingasampleargument  onitswebsite. ` (#` (#   2.0 ` Post_AOB_,preopinion:Iftheopeningbriefhasbeenfiled,buttheopinion " hasnotissued,fileasupplementalopeningbrief,alongwitharequesttofile # it,citingCaliforniaRulesofCourt,rule13(a)(4).$ ` (#` (#   3.0 ` Postopinion,butwithin30daysofitsissuance:Iftheopinionhasissued, &!" anditisstillwithinthe15dayperiodforpetitioningforrehearing,filea '"# petitionforrehearing.Ifitisbetween16and30daysaftertheopinion,file (#$ apetitionforrehearingaccompaniedbyamotionforrelieffromfailureto )$% fileatimelypetition.(Rule25(b)(4).)*%&` (#` (#  +&' VW Ve V  _  4.0 ` Morethan30dayspostopinion,butpreremittitur:TheCourtofAppeal  lacksjurisdictionduringthisperiod,soyoumustseekreviewinthe  CaliforniaSupremeCourt.IftheHowardissuewasnotraisedintheCourt  ofAppeal(asnormallyrequiredbyrule28(c)),askthecourttoexcusethis  failureonthegroundHowardwasonlyrecentlydecided.` (#` (#    `    ` a.0 3140dayspostopinion,nopetitionforreviewyetfiled:Filea   petitionforreviewraisingtheHowardissue.  (# (#    ` b.0 4160dayspostopinion,nopetitionfiled:Fileapetitionforreview,   alongwitharequesttoexcusethelatefilingpursuanttorule   28(e)(2),againonthegroundHowardwasdecidedrecently.  (# (# &     ` c.0 Petitionforreviewalreadyfiledonothergroundsandpending:File   asupplementalpetitionforreview,alongwitharequestforleaveto  fileit,explainingwhytheissuecouldnothavebeenraisedatan  earlierstage. (# (# 'H  5.0 ` Petitionforreviewalreadygranted:Filearequestforthecourttoexpand  thescopeofreview(rule29(b)(2))ortoremandthecasetotheCourtof  AppealfollowingtheSupremeCourtsdispositionoftheissue(s)alreadyon  review(rule29.3(c),(f)).IftheSupremeCourthasalreadyissuedan  opinionthatisnotyetfinal,maketherequestbypetitioningforrehearing  (rule29.5).` (#` (# &  B.  PostRemittiturCases    Thechoiceofremedyatthisstageposessomecomplications.Bothtrialand  appellatecourtshavehabeascorpusjurisdictionatthistime,andrecalloftheremittituris   anadditionalremedyavailableintheCourtofAppeal.Again,wecallattentiontothe ! ADIwebsitessampleHowardpleadingsandarticleontakingadvantageoffavorable " changesinthelawandencourageconsultationwiththeassignedADIstaffattorneyor # NeilAuwarter. $  ' HL  1.0 ` Coordinationwithtrialcounsel:Itispossibletrialcounselispreparingor &"" hasalreadyfiledawritpetitioninthetrialcourt.Thusitisimportantto '## contacttrialcounseltocoordinateactions,avoidduplicationofeffort,and ($$ selectthemostadvantageousforum.)%%` (#` (#  +'' Ї  2.0 ` WaltreusDixonissues:Postremittiturcasesmustaddresstheproblemthat  normallyhabeascorpusisnotavailabletoaddressissuesthatwereraised  unsuccessfullyonappeal(InreWaltreus++++(1965)62Cal.2d218,225)or  couldhavebeenbutwerenotraisedonappeal(#++Q#++InreDixon(1953)41  Cal.2d756,759#++qR#++#++Q#++).Achangeinthelawisrecognizedasanexceptiontothat  rule.(InreHarris(1993)5Cal.4th813,841#++R##++1S#;++++InreKing(1970)3Cal.3d   226,229,fn.2.)Ineffectiveassistanceofappellatecounselisanotherway   aroundit.(Harrisatpp.832834.) ` (#` (# #++!T##++@T#++++  3.0 ` Ineffectiveassistanceofappellatecounsel:#++U##++U#a+ԀIftheHowardissuewasnot   raisedonappeal,anissueofineffectiveassistanceofappellatecounselmay   arise.AlthoughapreviousCourtofAppealdecisionhadgonetheother   way(Peoplev.Sewellaa#+aVV#++(2000)80Cal.App.4th690#++W#++#++W#a+,disapprovedinHoward),   CourtofAppealauthoritywashardlyoverwhelming,andtheSupreme   Courthadnotyetspokenonthematter.Thusitispossiblethatfailureto  raisetheissueonappealwouldnotbeexcusedonthegrounditwouldhave  beenfutile,andinthatcaseineffectiveassistanceofcounselonappeal  mightariseasafallbackresponsetoawaiverorDixoncontention.(Inre  Harris,supra,5Cal.4thatpp.832834[ineffectiveassistanceofappellate  counselandDixon].)PleasecontactADIifthatproblemappearsinyour  case.` (#` (# #+aeX#++#++#X##++[#  4.0 ` Habeascorpuspetitionfiledinsuperiorcourt:Filingahabeaspetitionin  thesuperiorcourthassomeadvantages.TheCourtofAppealhas  occasionallyexpressedastrongpreferenceforstartinginthatforum.  Startingtheregivesthedefendantachancetopersuadethetrialcourtto  grantrelief,andthengoontotheCourtofAppealifthatisunsuccessful.  (IfthecasestartsintheCourtofAppealandisdecidedonthemerits,the  defendantcannottryagaininthesuperiorcourt.)Reliefcanbeobtained   moreexpeditiously:itispossiblethedistrictattorneywillconcedethe ! judgmentmustbevacatedandofferthedefendantabeneficialbargainto " avoidretryingthecase,allinoneproceeding.Thehabeascorpus # proceedingprobablycanbehandledbytrialcounsel. #  1      ׀$ ` (#` (# Ї  5.0 ` Habeascorpuspetitionand/orapplicationtorecallremittiturfiledinCourt  ofAppeal:StartingintheCourtofAppealhaspotentialadvantages,too.  First,iftheHowardissuewasraisedunsuccessfullyonapreviousappeal,  theCourtofAppealisthehighesttribunalthatcommittedthelegalerror  andthusarguablyistheonethatshouldcorrectit.Second,filinginthe  superiorcourtcouldmuddythewatersanddelaythecase,sinceatrialcourt   maybereluctantto overrulethepreviousholdingoftheCourtofAppeal   ontheidenticalissueinthesamecaseeventhough,legally,itshould.Y #  2      ׀   Third,ineffectiveassistanceofappellatecounsel(iftheHowardissuewas   notraisedonappeal)probablyshouldbepresentedtothecourtwhereit   occurred.Fourth,theappellatecourtmaybebetterequippedtodealwith   thecomplexitiesofpostappealrelief,retroactivity,prejudicialerror,etc. ` (#` (# Ѐ   ` a.0 Habeascorpus:HabeascorpusfiledintheCourtofAppealisan   appropriateremedywhenalaterdecisionoftheSupremeCourt  underminesthegroundsreliedonbytheCourtofAppealinits  previousdecision.Itmayalsobeusedtoraiseineffectiveassistance  ofappellatecounsel.(a+InreSmith(1970)3Cal.3d192,203204;  Peoplev.Valenzuela(1985)175Cal.App.3d381,388,disapproved  onothergroundsinPeoplev.Flood,supra,18Cal.4th470,484,  fn.12.)#+a0g#ԀIftherighttoreliefunderthenewcaseisclear,thepetition  candirectlyaskforthatremedy.Iftherighttoreliefislikelytobe  contested,theremedywouldberecalloftheremittiturtoallow  briefingontheHowardissue.(Peoplev.Mutch,supra,4Cal.3d  389,396397.) (# (#       ` b.0 Recallofremittitur:Counselshouldfirstconsiderfilingamotionto  recalltheremittiturunderrule26(c)(2).] #  3      ׀++++Afundamentalchangein   thelawisagroundforrecallingtheCourtofAppealremittitur.(See  Peoplev.Mutch,supra,4Cal.3d389,396397;Peoplev.Ketchel  (1966)63Cal.2d859,868;Peoplev.Curtis(1971)21Cal.App.3d  704,705,708,overruledonothergroundsinInreEarley(1975)14   Cal.3d122,130,fn.11.)#++6k##++Uk#Ineffectiveassistanceofappellatecounsel   isanotherground.(a+InreSmith,supra,3Cal.3d192,203204;   Peoplev.Valenzuela,supra,175Cal.App.3d381,388#+am#.)  (# (# 0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#Recalloftheremittiturhasagooddealtorecommendit.Itis   procedurallyeasierthanhabeascorpus.ItavoidsWaltreusDixon   issues,successivepetitionrestrictions,custodyrequirements,and   othersuchcomplicationsofhabeascorpus.Ifrecallisgrantedand   theCourtofAppealissuesanewdecision,thefederalhabeascorpus  statuteoflimitationsisrestarted,notjusttolled.++++(28U.S.C.  2244(d)(1)(A),(d)(2).)#++p##++p#Ԁ (# (# 0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#ThisapproachhasalreadybeensuccessfulinoneFourthAppellate  Districtcase.DivisionTwoissuedanorderrecallingtheremittitur  onHowardgroundsinPeoplev.Bordeau,E033230(Feb.22,2005).Z #  4      ׀    (# (# &     C.0  AlternativeRemedies(#(#   TheADIarticleonfavorablechangesinthelawdiscussesalternativeremediesthat  maybemoreefficientorexpeditiousthanthosedetailedabove.Wewillnotrepeatthem  '}shere,buturgecounseltoconsultthearticleat4[ @ O  5  http://www.adi-sandiego.com/articles.html6u O*u  7 "Xu   andalwaystoconsidertheneedforexpeditedreliefiftheclientmaybefacing dead   timeunderthenewdecision.