ÿWPCˆ! ºæwåESäŠïlLqòl: AÝÿ^÷й(mpãè/ì°¸ LO=§·ç×øš $ϽõVxîTý(éc/£#ÆeËΓ?f ™zLNjýçµìólö^ct£‰qQ£æÄb yï…ÀS•6œ“RÅJÏþo x±­Ö …}þ8Ö¿hý}ÞìÊ<>&ÕÑ~…ý¦Î·5Ʌ)¯0àÖÉ!»ÑåðŸªCËGò:rµsîÑä°TuøÅÁ³þ¾yøiKà!íÚéáb&NŠÍä¶S‡»Ù ˆW o Bë2 täºDœÂJÍ› ­åŒ#j+Å ƒÎ+‚…SÞA çÁøê,9¹c |P¿HVÕ"§¤³m®!:ü:ÔÙÏý@Ö "CáéÛqêßx$|¦ öSëÝ¢KÇ]7ÊÆà‹xMÅn¨‹cæïqƒožPæ$×'¢TØröSCˆã Ñ)ÕkÝ÷s½s.)›[—®ù;£€…Ö81Áêíþá½H}0ˆ¹¦á÷ÿ8Hè•ý¯E³yI átAqëSŒyÂ&üí4Fº^C”EAÍ•3¶µæ”ö&ø­`îP—†êøÏÿÃ(÷Wj™O}EIX#ÉÐU&N™ %ç 0Yí NF ^ H wT 4X l { m} U@” U>Ô 1‡ 72™ 1uË 72@ 0r 0D 0cS o¶ 0w% 0Šœ 1s& 72™è˧³ìZ¸Fmþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþ Bk!˜CENTRAL OFFICEÈÈÈÈ0(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman RegularX(1±Ê$¡¡Ô€ŠÝOˆXXÔÔUSUS.,Ô/Ÿp6— OV.6ê:i¢×+003|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ(ÖÃ9 Z‹(Times New Roman ô\  `&Times New Roman0™?OU[agmsyLettersLettersA.1.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.3#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)(M(3™%$¤¤Ý ƒ±Ê!ÝÔ€ŠÛ—ˆXXÔÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(;3£$´´Ô2#ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à eÝ ƒ™%$ÝÔ€ŠÛ—ˆXXÔÔUSUS.,Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€Rule€8.346(a)€(formerly€rule€32.3),€entitled€ð ðsettled€statement,ðð€provides:€Ð ° Ðà0  à(a)€Applicationа(#(# Ðà0  àAs€soon€as€a€party€learns€that€any€portion€of€the€oral€proceedings€cannot€beÐ ° Ðtranscribed,€the€party€may€serve€and€file€in€superior€court€an€application€forÐ ° Ðpermission€to€prepare€a€settled€statement.€The€application€must€explain€why€theÐ ° Ðoral€proceedings€cannot€be€transcribed.а (#(# Ðà  à(b)€Order€and€proposed€statementÐ °  Ðà0  àThe€judge€must€rule€on€the€application€within€five€days€after€it€is€filed.€If€the€judgeÐ °  Ðgrants€the€application,€the€parties€must€comply€with€the€relevant€provisions€of€ruleÐ °  Ð8.137,€but€the€applicant€must€deliver€a€proposed€statement€to€the€judge€forÐ °  Ðsettlement€within€30€days€after€it€is€ordered,€unless€the€reviewing€court€extends€theÐ °  Ðtime.а (#(# Ðà  à(c)€Serving€and€filing€the€settled€statementÐ °  Ðà0  àThe€applicant€must€prepare,€serve,€and€file€in€superior€court€an€original€and€threeÐ °  Ðcopies€of€the€settled€statement.Ð#°(#(#  #Їà  àRule€8.155(c)€(formerly€Rule€12(c))€provides:€Ð ° Ðà  àò ò(c)€Correctionsó óÐ ° Ðà0  à(1)€On€motion€of€a€party,€on€stipulation,€or€on€its€own€motion,€the€reviewing€courtÐ ®þ Ðmay€order€the€correction€or€certification€of€any€part€of€the€record.Юþ(#(# Ðà0  à(2)€The€reviewing€court€may€order€the€superior€court€to€settle€disputes€aboutÐ ®þ Ðomissions€or€errors€in€the€record.Ю þ(#(# ÐÌà  àAdditionally,€Rule€8.137€(formerly€Rule€7)€provides€for€a€detailed€procedure€forÐ ® þ Ðpreparing€a€settled€statement.Ð ® þ Ð(Oé;$µµà0  àÔ2#ÔÚ  ÚaÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0` (#(#à(b·¤$¶¶à0  àà0` (#(#àÔ2#ÔÚ  ÚÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0¸ ` (#` (#à2•Ñ37=CIOW_e®®I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)1) ÞÝ ƒ™%$ÝÔ€ŠÛ—ˆXXÔÔUSUS.,Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€Juveniles€are€also€statutorily€entitled€to€a€complete€record€on€appeal€and€areÐ ° Ðentitled€to€a€record€sufficient€to€permit€meaningful€appellate€review.€€(Ô_ÔWelfÔ_Ô.€&€Inst.€Code,Ð ° Ððð€800,€Ô_ÔsubdÔ_Ô.€(e);€òòIn€re€Steven€B.óó€(1979)€25€Cal.3d€1,€5„7.) Ý ƒ™%$ÝÔ€ŠÛ—ˆXXÔÔUSUS.,Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€Some€federal€circuit€courts€have€excused€the€requirement€that€a€state€habeasÐ ° Ðpetitioner€exhaust€state€remedies€in€the€context€of€claims€of€excessive€appellate€delay.€Ð ° Ð(òòCoe€v.€Thurmanóó,€òòsupraóó,€922€F.2d€at€530€[collecting€cases].) phonographicGallandC.D.O.S.WingoApalatequiGzikowskiColeyOsbandSerrato t]hedispositionalThurmanWoodfordDeLeon i]nDoggettDoggettalismanicRheuarkE.D.N.Y.F.SuppBatson CoeCal.App ®Ý ƒ™%$ÝÔ€ŠÛ—ˆXXÔÔUSUS.,Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€The€requirement€that€an€application€for€permission€to€file€a€settled€statement€beÐ ° Ðð ðverified,ðð€to€which€òòMarksóó€refers,€was€formerly€contained€in€Rule€36€but€has€been€deletedÐ ° Ðfrom€the€successor€rules,€i.e.,€former€rule€32.3€and€current€rule€8.346. cÝ ƒ™%$ÝÔ€ŠÛ—ˆXXÔÔUSUS.,Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€In€òòBoyd€v.€Ô_ÔNewlandÔ_Ôóó€(9òòthóó€Cir.€2006)€467€F.3d€1139,€the€Ninth€Circuit€Court€ofÐ ° ÐAppeals€held€that,€by€denying€the€defendantððs€requests€for€a€full€transcript€of€the€voirÐ ° Ðdire,€a€California€Court€of€Appeal€violated€appellantððs€federal€due€process€right€to€a€freeÐ ° Ðtranscript€sufficient€for€appellate€review€of€his€òòÔ_ÔBatsonÔ_Ô/Wheeleróó€claim. dÝ ƒ±Ê!ÝÔ€ŠÛ—ˆXXÔÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÓ  Óò òòòóóÔ‡R§NQˆŠÛ—Ôà@@  ìàFIRST€DISTRICT€APPELLATE€PROJECT€Ð ° Ðà@@QQ"ìàTRAINING€SEMINARÐ üL Ðà@@VV"ìàÔ#†ŠÛ—ˆQR§Nq#ÔÔ‡î¬1ۗÔJanuary€27,€2007Ð H˜ ÐÌÌÌÌà@@ìì*ìàÌÔ#†ŠÛ—ˆîî¬1D#ÔÔ‡íZ ˆŠÛ—ÔÌÌÌà@@R R ìàòòOptions€When€Part€of€the€Ð è8  Ðà@@´ ´ ìàRecord€Cannot€Be€PreparedóóÐ €Ð  ÐÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÔ#†ŠÛ—ˆ íZÂ#ÔÔ‡î¬1ۗÔà@@hh%ìàTara€Ô_ÔMulayÔ_ÔÐ @! ÐÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÔ#†ŠÛ—ˆîî¬1”#ÔòòÐ  ¨,ø' ÐOPTIONS€WHEN€PART€OF€THE€RECORD€CANNOT€BE€PREPAREDóóÐ ° ÐÌDue€Process€Challenges€Available€When€Reporterððs€Transcripts,€Exhibits€Ð ¬ü Ðand€Other€Record€Items€are€Missing€or€Substantially€DelayedÐ ªú ÐÌÌÌJanuary€2007ó óÐ ¢ ò ÐÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌFIRST€DISTRICT€APPELLATE€PROJECTÐ  ð Ð731€Harrison€St.,€Suite€201Ð  ð ÐSan€Francisco,€CA€94107Ð  ð Ð(415)€495„3119Ð   ð Ðò òTABLE€OF€CONTENTSÐ ° ÐDue€Process€Challenges€Available€When€Reporterððs€Transcripts,€Exhibits€Ð ®þ Ðand€Other€Record€Items€are€Missing€or€Substantially€DelayedÐ ¬ü Ðó óÌÓ  Óò òINTRODUCTIONó óà€¼"¼"J(#à1ˆÐ ªú Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà È àÌò òI.€€à0  àDENIAL€OF€THE€RIGHT€TO€EFFECTIVE€AND€ADEQUATEÐ ® þ ÐAPPELLATE€REVIEW.à€¼"¼"J(#(#(#àó ó2à€@(#(#K(#(#(#àò òˆÐ ¬ ü Ðó óÌà  àA.€€à0 ` àòòGeneral€Principles€of€Lawóó.à€¼"¼"J(#` (#` (#à2ˆÐ °  ÐÌà  àB.€€à0 ` àòòSteps€to€Prove€Denial€of€Adequate€Appellate€Reviewóó.ò ò€ó óà€¼"¼"J(#` (#` (#à4ˆÐ °  ÐÌÓ€ (#33ÓÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýà  àà ` àÝ‚3£ñÝÔ2#ÔÚ  Ú1Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0 ¸ àÝ  ÝDemonstrating€That€the€Record€Cannot€Be€Reconstructed€with€Ýƒ3£ñ6 ݌д ¸ (#¸ (# ÐŒÝ  Ýà  àà ` àà ¸ àOther€Methods.à€¼"¼"J(#à4ˆÐ ´ ÐÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àa.€€à0  àSettling€the€record€where€reporterððs€transcripts€are€missing:Ð ´ Ðthe€rules€and€basic€procedures.à€¼"¼"J(#(#(#à4ˆÐ ´ ÐÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àb.€€à0  àReconstruction€of€Exhibits.à€¼"¼"J(#(#(#à8ˆÐ ´ ÐÌà  àà ` àà0 ¸ àà ` àà ¸ àc.€€€à0¸ (#¸ (#àAre€There€Any€Cases€in€Which€Settlement€Proceedings€orÐ ´ ÐReconstruction€of€Exhibits€Are€not€Necessary?à€¼"¼"J(#(#(#à8ˆÐ ´ ÐÌà  àà ` à2.€€à0 ¸ àChallenging€Reconstructed€Exhibits€and€Settled€Statements.à€¼"¼"J(#¸ (#¸ (#à9ˆÐ ´ ÐÌà  àà ` à3.€€à0 ¸ àProving€Prejudice.à€P"P"I(#¸ (#¸ (#à10ˆÐ ´ ÐÌò òII.ó ó€€à0  àò òEXCESSIVE€DELAY€IN€THE€APPELLATE€PROCESSó óà  àà€P"P"I(#(#(#à12ˆÐ ´  ÐÌà  àA.€€à0 ` àòòGeneral€Standardsóó.à h àà€P"P"I(#` (#` (#à12ˆÐ ¸" ÐÌà  àB.€€à0 ` àòòThe€Barker€v.€Wingo€Analysisóó.à€P"P"I(#` (#` (#à15ˆÐ ¸$  ÐÌà  àà ` à1.€€à0 ¸ àThe€length€of€the€delay.à€P"P"I(#¸ (#¸ (#à15ˆÐ ¸&"" ÐÌà  àà ` à2.€€€à0 ¸ àThe€reason€for€the€delay€and€the€defendantððs€assertion€of€his€Ð¸($$¸ (#¸ (# Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àrights.à€P"P"I(#à16ˆÐ ¸)%% ÐÌà  àà ` àÔ‡ ŠÛ—ˆˆŠÛ—Ô3.€€€à0 ¸ àPrejudice.Ô#†ŠÛ—ˆˆ ŠÛ——#Ôà€P"P"I(#¸ (#¸ (#à17ˆÐ ¸+'' ÐÌò òSAMPLE€MOTION€TO€VACATE€JUDGMENTó óÐ  ¸-)) ÐØØò òòòÓ  ÓÑ8€Û—ŠˆddÈ8ÑóóDue€Process€Challenges€Available€When€Reporterððs€Transcripts,€Exhibits€Ð ° Ðand€Other€Record€Items€are€Missing€or€Substantially€Delayedòòó óóóÐ ®þ ÐÓyÓÌÓ  Óò òINTRODUCTIONó óÐ ¬ü ÐÌÓ‰ÓÓÓà  àWhen€one€or€more€reporterððs€transcripts€of€trial€proceedings€cannot€be€prepared,€orÐ ª ú Ðwhen€an€exhibit€or€document€relevant€to€a€claim€on€appeal€cannot€be€located,€a€defendantÐ ª ú Ðcan€seek€relief€from€his€or€her€conviction€either€by€way€of€moving€to€vacate€the€judgmentÐ ª ú  Ðor€by€raising€a€claim€in€the€opening€brief€on€appeal€that€the€record€is€not€sufficient€toÐ ªú  Ðpermit€the€adequate€and€effective€appellate€review€required€by€the€FourteenthÐ ªú  ÐAmendment.€€Frequently,€the€fact€that€a€normal€record€item€is€missing€is€brought€to€lightÐ ªú Ðrelatively€early€in€the€appellate€process€through,€for€example,€a€return€certificate€by€aÐ ªú Ðsuperior€court€reporter€or€clerk€stating€that€an€exhibit€is€missing€or€that€a€transcript€cannotÐ ªú Ðbe€prepared.€€In€those€circumstances,€appellate€counsel€can€act€with€alacrity€in€pursuingÐ ªú Ðefforts€to€reconstruct€the€record€and€moving€to€vacate€the€conviction€or€filing€a€briefÐ ªú Ðclaiming€denial€of€meaningful€appellate€review.€€Occasionally€excessive€delay€may€occurÐ ªú Ðin€the€appellate€process€due€to€protracted€efforts€by€the€superior€court,€Court€of€Appeal,Ð ªú Ðor€both€to€complete€the€record€on€appeal.€€In€that€event,€a€defendant€may€raise€a€claim€inÐ ª!ú Ðeither€state€or€federal€court,€or€both,€that€the€appellate€delay€itself€has€violated€his€or€herÐ ª#ú Ðfederal€due€process€rights.Ð ª%ú ! Ðà  àÐ  ª'ú"# ÐÔ_Ôò òÓÓI.€€à0  àDENIAL€OF€THE€RIGHT€TO€EFFECTIVE€AND€ADEQUATEÐ ° ÐAPPELLATE€REVIEW.Юþ(#(# Ðó óÌà  àA.€€à0 ` àòòGeneral€Principles€of€Lawóó.Ьü` (#` (# ÐÌÓÓà  àWhen€a€state€has€afforded€criminal€defendants€a€right€to€appeal€their€convictions,Ð ¬ ü Ðfederal€due€process€guarantees€that€defendants€receive€a€record€on€appeal€sufficient€toÐ ¬ ü Ðpermit€adequate€and€effective€appellate€review.€€Ô‡ ŠÛ—ˆˆŠÛ—Ô(See,€e.g.,òò€Draper€v.€Washingtonóó€(1963)Ð ¬ ü  Ð372€U.S.€487,€496-499;€òòGriffin€v.€Illinoisóó€(1956)€351€U.S.€12,€20;Ô#†ŠÛ—ˆˆ ŠÛ—c#ÔÔ‡ ŠÛ—ˆˆŠÛ—Ô€òòÔ#†ŠÛ—ˆˆ ŠÛ—/#ÔPeople€v.€HowardóóÐ ¬ü  Ð(1992)€1€Cal.4th€1132,€1166).€€The€Equal€Protection€Clause€also€requires€states€to€provideÐ ¬ü  Ðindigent€criminal€defendants€with€a€òòfreeóó€record€on€appeal€that€is€sufficient€to€provide€suchÐ ¬ü Ðadequate€and€effective€review.€€(òòÔ‡ ŠÛ—ˆˆŠÛ—ÔòòóóGriffin€v.€Illinoisóó,€òòsupraóó,€351€U.S.€at€20Ô#†ŠÛ—ˆˆ ŠÛ—§#Ô.)à x àÐ ¬ü Ðà  àCalifornia€statutory€law€likewise€protects€a€defendantððs€right€to€sufficient€recordsÐ ¬ü Ðof€the€oral€proceedings€at€a€trial.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€€Penal€Code€section€1181,€subdivision€(9)€provides:€Ð ¬ü ÐÓÓà0  àWhen€the€right€to€a€phonographic€report€has€not€been€waived,€and€when€it€is€notÐ ¬ü Ðpossible€to€have€a€phonographic€report€of€the€trial€transcribed€by€a€stenographicÐ ¬ü Ðreporter€as€provided€by€law€or€by€rule€because€of€the€death€or€disability€of€aÐ ¬ü Ðreporter€who€participated€as€a€stenographic€reporter€at€the€trial€or€because€of€theÐ ¬ü Ðloss€or€destruction,€in€whole€or€in€substantial€part,€of€the€notes€of€such€reporter,€theÐ ¬ü Ðtrial€court€or€a€judge,€thereof,€or€the€reviewing€court€shall€have€power€to€set€asideÐ ¬ ü Ðand€vacate€the€judgment,€order€or€decree€from€which€an€appeal€has€been€taken€orÐ ¬!ü Ðis€to€be€taken€and€to€order€a€new€trial€of€the€action€or€proceeding.Ь"ü(#(# ÐÌÓÓà  àReporterððs€transcripts€are€not€the€only€missing€record€items€that€have€necessitatedÐ ¬$ü  Ðreversal€of€a€criminal€convictions.€The€federal€constitutional€guarantees€to€adequate€andÐ ¬&ü!" Ðeffective€appellate€review€may€be€denied€when€a€crucial€trial€exhibit€or€documentÐ ° Ðconsidered€by€the€court€below€in€ruling€on€a€motion€is€lost€and€unrecoverable.€€(See,€e.g.,Ð ° ÐòòPeople€v.€Gallandóó€(December€28,€2006)€òò€€€óó€Cal.App.4th€òò€€€óó€[07€C.D.O.S.€24,€€2006€WLÐ ° Ð3804623];€òòIn€re€Roderick€S.óó€(1981)€125€Cal.App.3d€48.)€Ð °  Ðà  àThere€are€two€major€hurdles€to€overcome€in€demonstrating€that€the€loss€of€a€recordÐ °  Ðitem€necessitates€reversal.€€First,€if€the€record€can€be€reconstructed€through€methods€otherÐ °  Ðthan€obtaining€reporterððs€transcripts,€such€as€ð ðsettled€statementðð€procedures€(see€Cal.Ð °  ÐRules€of€Court,€rules€8.137,€8.155(c)€&€8.346(a)),€the€defendant€must€employ€suchÐ ° Ðmethods€to€obtain€appellate€review.€€(See,€e.g.,€òòPeople€v.€Hawthorneóó€(1992)€4€Cal.4th€43,Ð ° Ð66;€òòPeople€v.€Bradfordóó€(1997)€15€Cal.4th€1229,€1382.)€€This€rule€applies€equally€to€trialÐ ° Ðexhibits€and€other€documents.€€(òòPeople€v.€Coleyóó€(1997)€52€Cal.App.4th€964,€969.)€Ð ° Ðà  àSecond,€the€loss,€destruction,€or€absence€of€a€portion€of€the€reporterððs€transcripts€orÐ ° Ðexhibits€does€not€per€se€require€a€new€trial.€€(See,€e.g.,€òòPeople€v.€Osbandóó€(1996)€13Ð ° ÐCal.4th€622,€663„664òò;óó€òòPeople€v.€Billsóó€(1995)€38€Cal.App.4th€953,€959.)€€The€burden€is€onÐ ° Ðthe€appellant€to€show€that€the€omissions€are€both€substantial€and€ð ðconsequential.ðð€Ð °  Ð(òòPeople€v.€Chessmanóó€(1950)€35€Cal.€2d€455,€462;€òòPeople€v.€Howardóó,€òòsupraóó,€1€Cal.4th€atÐ °" Ð1165òòóó)€and€that€the€omissions€prevent€meaningful€appellate€review.€€(òòPeople€v.€PinholsteróóÐ °$  Ð(1992)€1€Cal.4th€865,€921.)€€An€appellate€record€is€inadequate€ð ðððonly€if€the€complained-ofÐ °&"" Ðdeficiency€is€prejudicial€to€the€defendantððs€ability€to€prosecute€his€appeal.ðððð€(òòPeople€v.Ð °($$ ÐYoungóó€(2005)€34€Cal.4th€1149,€1170,€quoting€òòPeople€v.€Alvarezóó€(1996)€14€Cal.4th€155,Ð °*&& Ð196,€fn.€8.)€€The€record€must€be€adequate€enough€ð ðto€enable€the€court€to€pass€upon€theÐ ° Ðquestions€sought€to€be€raised.ðð€(òòIn€re€Steven€Bóó.€(1979)€25€Cal.3d€1,€7,€quoting€òòPeople€v.Ð ° ÐApalatequi€óó(1978)€82€Cal.App.3d€970,€973.)€€The€defendant€bears€the€burden€ofÐ ° Ðdemonstrating€that€the€record€is€not€adequate€to€permit€meaningful€appellate€review€andÐ °  Ðto€show€prejudice.€€(òòPeople€v.€Samayoaóó€(1997)€15€Cal.4th€795,€820.)Ð °  ÐÓ€ (•Ñ33ÓØ! !Øò òà  àó óB.€€à0 ` àòòSteps€to€Prove€Denial€of€Adequate€Appellate€Reviewóó.ò ò€ó óа ` (#` (# ÐÝ"‚·¤"ÝÝ  ÝÓÓÝ‚·¤ß/Ýà0  àà0` (#(#àÔ2•ÑÔÚ  Ú1Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0¸ ` (#` (#àÝ  ÝDemonstrating€That€the€Record€Cannot€Be€Reconstructed€with€OtherÐ ¸  ÐMethods.݃·¤ß/0݌и ¸ (#¸ (# ÐŒÝ  ÝÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àa.€€à0  àSettling€the€record€where€reporterððs€transcripts€are€missing:Ð ¸ Ðthe€rules€and€basic€procedures.ÓÓи(#(# Ðà  àThe€Rules€of€Court€include€multiple€provisions,€which€appear€to€be€somewhatÐ ¸ Ðoverlapping,€relating€to€settled€statements€and€settlement€of€disputes€over€omissions€inÐ ¸ Ðthe€record.€€(Cal.€Rules€of€Court,€€rules€8.137,€8.155(c),€&€8.346(a).)׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€CaliforniaÐ ¸ ÐSupreme€Court€applied€the€predecessors€to€Rules€8.137€and€8.346€(former€Rules€7€andÐ ° Ð36)×ƒŽ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€to€a€capital€case€in€òòMarks€v.€Superior€Courtóó€(2002)€27€Cal.4th€176,€and€òòMarksóóÐ ° Ðprovides€a€general€idea€of€how€the€procedure€should€be€conducted€in€Superior€court.€Ð ° ÐAssuming€that€a€stipulated€settled€statement€cannot€be€prepared,€there€are€eight€steps€ofÐ °  Ðthe€procedure€set€forth€in€Rule€8.137€and€summarized€in€òòMarksóó.€€(òòIdóó.€at€193.)€€The€eight„Ð °  Ðstep€procedure€appears€both€complicated€and€involved.€€However,€if€the€prosecutor,Ð °  Ðdefense€counsel€and€the€court€agree€that€it€is€not€possible€to€prepare€a€settled€statement,Ð °  Ðall€that€may€be€required€is€either€preparation€of€a€statement€that€the€record€cannot€beÐ ° Ðsettled€or€a€reported€hearing€to€establish€that€fact.€€Even€when€a€settled€statement€isÐ ° Ðultimately€prepared,€the€process€may€not€involve€all€eight€steps€in€strict€order.€€As€òòMarksóóÐ ° Ðobserved:€ð ðthe€scant€decisional€authority€construing€settlement€procedures€suggests€courtsÐ ° Ðgenerally€will€not€elevate€form€over€substance€if€the€statement€as€settled€fully€andÐ ° Ðaccurately€reflects€the€omitted€oral€proceedings.ðð€€(òòIdóó.€at€195.)Ð ° Ðà  àRules€8.137,€8.155(c),€&€8.346(a)€together€provide€that€the€process€begins€when€aÐ ° Ðdefendant€becomes€aware€that€a€record€item€is€missing€or€that€a€reporterððs€transcript€ofÐ ° Ðoral€proceedings€cannot€be€transcribed,€at€which€time€the€defendant€may€submit€anÐ ° Ðapplication€for€permission€to€prepare€a€settled€statement€in€the€superior€court.€€As€aÐ °  Ðpractical€matter,€or€because€of€the€individual€circumstances€of€a€particular€case,€appellateÐ °  Ðcounsel€may€wish€to€first€request€either€that€the€Court€of€Appeal€order€the€Superior€courtÐ °  Ðto€hold€settlement€proceedings€(see€rule€8.155(c))€or€request€an€extension€of€time€to€fileÐ °  Ðthe€opening€brief€to€a€specified€period€following€the€filing€of€a€settled€statement€orÐ ° Ðstatement€that€the€record€cannot€be€settled.€€€This€procedure€may€be€the€best€option€whenÐ ° Ðthe€missing€item€is€not€part€of€the€normal€record€on€appeal€but€is€necessary€to€the€appealÐ ° Ðand€has€been€the€subject€of€an€augmentation€order€by€the€Court€of€Appeal.€€However,Ð ° Ðdirectly€applying€to€the€Court€of€Appeal€itself€to€settle€the€record,€as€opposed€to€movingÐ ° Ðfor€an€order€directing€the€Superior€court€to€settle€the€record,€is€not€a€proper€procedure€forÐ ° Ðattempting€to€reconstruct€a€missing€record€item.€€(òòPeople€v.€Castroóó€(1982)€138Ð ° ÐCal.App.3d€30€[denying€appellantððs€ð ðmotion€to€settle€the€record€on€appealðð€as€presentedÐ °  Ðto€the€ð ðwrong€court,ðð€but€granting€an€extension€of€time€of€30€days€to€file€the€opening€briefÐ °" Ðfollowing€either€the€filing€of€a€settled€statement€or€augmentation€of€the€record].)€Ð °$  Ðà  àAn€application€for€permission€to€prepare€a€settled€statement€must€explain€why€oralÐ °&"" Ðproceedings€cannot€be€transcribed.€€(Rules€8.346(a).)€€It€is€appellate€counselððsÐ °($$ Ðresponsibility€to€work€with€trial€counsel€and€the€prosecutor,€if€possible,€to€attempt€toÐ °*&& Ðprepare€a€draft€or€stipulated€settled€statement€for€submission€to€the€trial€court,€or€toÐ ° Ðascertain€whether€those€parties€are€unable€to€assist€in€the€preparation€of€settled€statementÐ ° Ðdue€to€loss€of€memory€or€for€some€other€reason.€€(òòPeople€v.€Everettóó€(1990)€224Ð ° ÐCal.App.3d€932,€937€&€fn.€4€[defendant€claimed€the€record€was€insufficient€to€provideÐ °  Ðadequate€appellate€review,€but€it€appeared€a€settled€statement€could€have€been€prepared,Ð °  Ðappellate€counsel€made€no€efforts€to€prepare€one€after€the€trial€court€refused€to€draft€one,Ð °  Ðand€the€Court€of€Appeal€held€that€appellate€counsel€failed€to€pursue€a€settled€statement€toÐ °  Ðð ðany€appreciable€degreeðð].)€€A€trial€court€must€not€undertake€to€draft€such€a€statementÐ ° Ðitself,€but€it€may€direct€appellate€counsel€to€do€so.€€(òòMarks€v.€Superior€Courtóó,€òòsupraóó,€27Ð ° ÐCal.4th€at€197.)€€òòóó€While€appellate€counsel€must€establish€that€he€or€she€has€endeavored€toÐ ° Ðprepare€a€settled€statement,€a€trial€court€may€also€settle€a€record€over€the€objections€orÐ ° Ðcontrary€to€the€assertions€of€appellate€or€defense€counsel:€€ð ðOnce€settlement€is€ordered,Ð ° Ðthe€court€has€broad€discretion€to€accept€or€reject€counselððs€representations€in€accordanceÐ ° Ðwith€its€assessment€of€their€credibility.€[Citations.]€However,€it€cannot€refuse€to€make€thatÐ ° Ðassessment.€It€may€decline€to€settle€a€statement€only€if,€after€resort€to€all€available€aids,Ð °  Ðincluding€the€judgeððs€own€memory€and€those€of€the€participants,€it€is€affirmativelyÐ °" Ðconvinced€of€its€inability€to€do€so.€[Citation.]ðð€(òòIdóó.€at€196,€quoting€òòPeople€v.€Gzikowskióó€Ð °$  Ð(1982)€32€Cal.3d€580,€585,€fn.€2.)Ð °&"" Ðà  àIf,€due€to€the€passage€of€time€or€other€reasons,€the€parties€and€the€trial€courtÐ °($$ Ðdeclare€that€they€cannot€prepare€a€settled€statement€at€a€hearing€on€the€issue,€or€if€thereÐ °*&& Ðare€any€objections€by€defense€counsel€or€appellate€counsel€to€a€settled€statement€(see€partÐ ° Ð4,€òòinfraóó),€the€appellant€can€then€proceed€to€move€to€vacate€the€judgment€pursuant€to€PenalÐ ° ÐCode€section€1181,€subdivision€(9),€or€to€claim€on€appeal€that€the€record€is€inadequate€toÐ ° Ðprovide€meaningful€appellate€review.Ð °  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àb.€€à0  àReconstruction€of€exhibits.а (#(# Ðà  à€Although€there€is€no€particular€rule€addressing€ð ðreconstruction€of€exhibits,ððÐ °  Ðdecisional€authority€establishes€that€an€appellant€may€move€for€ð ðreconstruction€ofÐ °  Ðexhibits,ðð€a€settled€statement€regarding€exhibits€missing€from€superior€court€or,€in€theÐ ° Ðalternative,€for€a€settled€statement€regarding€exhibits€that€cannot€be€reconstructed.€Ð ° Ð(òòPeople€v.€Coleyóó,€òòsupraóó,€52€Cal.App.4th€at€972„973€[ð ðAn€appellant€has€the€burden€toÐ ° Ðperfect€the€appeal€and€to€show€error€and€resulting€prejudice.€To€carry€this€burden,€theÐ ° Ðdefendant€must€move€for€reconstruction€of€lost€exhibitsðð];€see€also€òòPeople€v.€Osbandóó,Ð ° Ðòòsupraóó,€13€Cal.4th€622€[in€capital€case,€California€Supreme€Court€ordered€superior€court€toÐ ° Ðreconstruct€numerous€missing€exhibits€and€to€prepare€and€certify€a€settled€statementÐ ° Ðregarding€any€exhibits€that€could€not€be€reconstructed].)€€The€procedures€fòòóóorÐ °  Ðreconstruction€of€exhibits€are€essentially€the€same€as€that€for€preparing€a€settledÐ °" Ðstatement.€€(òòColeyóó,€òòsupraóó,€at€969.)Ð °$  ÐÓÓà0  àà0` (#(#àà ¸ àc.€€€à0` (#` (#àAre€there€any€cases€in€which€settlement€proceedings€orÐ °&"" Ðreconstruction€efforts€are€not€necessary?а'##(#(# ÐÌÓÓà  àAt€first€glance,€the€notion€that€a€reporterððs€transcript€of€even€an€entire€day€of€trialÐ °)%% Ðproceedings,€much€less€an€entire€trial,€could€be€reconstructed€based€on€the€memory€orÐ °+'' Ðnotes€of€the€trial€participants€can€seem€counterintuitive.€€However,€as€a€general€matter,Ð ° Ðthe€requirement€that€the€appellant€attempt€to€reconstruct€the€record€is€mandatory,€and€it€isÐ ° Ðalways€safe€to€assume€that€a€reviewing€court€could€find€that€the€failure€to€attempt€toÐ ° Ðreconstruct€the€record€nullifies€a€due€process€claim€that€the€record€is€inadequate.€Ð °  ÐAdditionally,€settlement€proceedings€in€which€the€court€and€counsel€affirm€that€theyÐ °  Ðcannot€reconstruct€reporterððs€transcripts€or€an€important€exhibit€allow€the€appellant€toÐ °  Ðmake€a€final€showing€that€it€is€impossible€to€obtain€a€reliable€substitute€for€the€normalÐ °  Ðrecord€item€or€items.€Ð ° ÐòòÓÓà  àPeople€v.€Scottóó€(1972)€23€Cal.App.3d€80€[reporterððs€transcript€of€the€day€in€whichÐ ° Ðall€evidence€was€presented€and€case€was€argued€was€not€available,€but€a€stipulated€settled€Ð ° Ðstatement€was€prepared€and€it€was€sufficient€to€permit€adequate€appellate€review].òòÐ ° Ðà  àEverettóó,€òòsupraóó,€224€Cal.App.3d€at€936„937€[where€all€reporterððs€transcripts€of€aÐ ° Ðrape€trial,€except€the€opening€statements€and€the€victimððs€testimony,€were€destroyed€dueÐ ° Ðto€appellantððs€failure€to€appear€for€sentencing,€the€loss€was€due€to€the€defendantððs€ownÐ ° Ðactions€and€the€defendant€failed€to€show€that€a€settled€statement€adequate€for€appellateÐ ° Ðreview€could€not€be€prepared]Ð ° Ðà  àBut€see€òòPeople€v.€Serratoóó€(1965)€238€Cal.App.2d€112€[all€of€the€reporterððsÐ ° Ðtranscripts€of€a€jury€trial€were€missing€and€Court€of€Appeal€reversed€conviction€withoutÐ ° Ðappearing€to€require€any€effort€at€record€settlement€or€any€record€evidence€thatÐ ° Ðdefendantððs€counsel€could€not€remember€the€trial€proceedings].Ð ° Ðòòà  àColeyóó,€òòsupraóó,€52€Cal.App.4th€at€973€[disagreeing€with€long„settled€case,€òòRoderickÐ °  ÐS.óó€(1981)€125€Cal.App.3d€48òòóó€on€the€grounds€that€òòRoderick€S.óó€had€not€considered€whetherÐ °! Ða€crucial€exhibit€could€be€reconstructed€or€a€settled€statement€obtained;€in€òòRoderick€S.óó€theÐ °" Ðdefendant€had€been€found€guilty€of€possession€of€a€switch„blade€knife€over€two€inchesÐ °# Ðlong€and€possession€of€a€concealed€weapon,€the€knife€admitted€into€evidence€had€beenÐ °$  Ðlost,€testimony€about€the€manner€in€which€the€blade€could€be€opened€did€not€conform€toÐ °%!! Ðthe€statutory€language,€and€the€Court€of€Appeal€reversed,€finding€that€the€record€wasÐ °&"" Ðinadequate€to€permit€review€of€the€defendantððs€insufficiency€of€the€evidence€claim].€Ð °'## ÐÌà  àà ` à2.€€à0 ¸ àChallenging€Reconstructed€Exhibits€and€Settled€Statements.а)%%¸ (#¸ (# ÐÌÓÓà  àSome€cases€involve€procedures€in€which€superior€courts€have€authenticatedÐ °+'' Ðdocuments€or€issued€settled€statements€that€reviewing€courts€have€rejected.€€An€appellantÐ ° Ðmay€challenge€reconstructed€record€items€and€settled€statements€on€the€grounds,€e.g.,€thatÐ ° Ðthe€superior€courtððs€findings€were€not€supported€by€substantial€evidence€or€that€thereÐ ° Ðremains€good€cause€to€doubt€the€authenticity€of€the€reconstructed€item.€òòÐ °  ÐÓÓà  àPeople€v.€Osbandóó,€òòsupraóó,€13€Cal.4th€at€662„663€[in€light€of€trial€testimonyÐ °  Ðdescribing€a€missing€exhibit€in€a€manner€inconsistent€with€exhibit€as€ð ðreconstructedðð€byÐ °  Ðthe€trial€court,€the€superior€courtððs€finding€that€it€had€been€adequately€reconstructed€wasÐ °  Ðnot€supported€by€substantial€evidence€and€would€be€rejected].Ð °  Ðà  àòòPeople€v.€Gallandóó€(December€28,€2006)€òò€€€óó€Cal.App.4th€òò€€€óó€[07€C.D.O.S.€24,€€2006Ð °  ÐWL€3804623]€[where,€because€magistrate€and€trial€court€had€repeatedly€released€theÐ °  Ðoriginal€confidential€affidavit€submitted€in€support€of€a€request€for€a€search€warrant€toÐ ° Ðlaw€enforcement,€the€original€was€lost,€and€the€trial€court€purported€to€authenticate€anÐ ° Ðunsigned€version€to€which€the€court€added€one€page,€there€was€ð ðgood€cause€to€doubt€theÐ ° Ðauthenticity€of€the€confidentialðð€document€and€ð ð[t]he€documents€included€in€the€appellateÐ ° Ðrecord€are€too€far€attenuated€from€the€magistrateððs€determination€of€probable€cause€toÐ ° Ðserve€as€a€legitimate€basis€for€any€decision€on€the€warrantððs€validityðð].Ð ° Ðà  àòòPeople€v.€Apalatequióó€(1978)€82€Cal.App.3d€970€[where€trial€court€rejectedÐ ° Ðdefendantððs€proposed€settled€statement€regarding€closing€arguments€that€could€not€beÐ ° Ðtranscribed€and€accepted€and€engrossed€the€prosecutorððs€proposed€settled€statement,€butÐ ° Ðtrial€court€also€stated€that€it€could€not€remember€the€arguments€of€counsel,€the€engrossedÐ ° Ðsettled€statement€could€not€provide€adequate€appellate€review€of€defendantððsÐ ° Ðprosecutorial€misconduct€claim].)€Ð ° ÐÌà  àà ` à3.€€à0 ¸ àProving€Prejudice.а¸ (#¸ (# ÐÌÓÓà  àIn€practice,€the€standard€of€prejudice,€which€requires€that€a€complained„of„Ð °! Ðdeficiency€in€the€record€impair€the€defendantððs€ability€to€prosecute€the€appeal€(see,€e.g.,Ð °# ÐòòPeople€v.€Youngóó,€òòsupraóó,€34€Cal.4th€at€1170),€necessitates:€(1)€that€there€exist€evidence€ofÐ °%!! Ðat€least€one€potentially€reversible€appellate€claim;€and€(2)€that€one€or€more€such€claimsÐ °'## Ðcannot€be€adjudicated€on€appeal€as€the€result€of€the€absence€of€a€portion€of€the€record.€€AsÐ °)%% ÐòòPeople€v.€Mooreóó€(1988)€201€Cal.App.3d€51,€58,€observed,€cases€in€which€prejudice€hasÐ °+'' Ðbeen€found€included€ð ðat€least€a€prima€facie€showing€that€errors€were€committed€duringÐ ° Ðthe€unrecorded€[trial]€period€sufficient€to€overcome€the€presumption€of€regularity€in€aÐ ° Ðtrial.ðð€€€The€portions€of€the€record€that€are€available€may€demonstrate€the€existence€of€oneÐ ° Ðor€more€potentially€viable€appellate€claims€which€cannot€be€reviewed€on€appeal.€€ForÐ °  Ðexample,€in€the€past,€minute€orders€in€the€clerkððs€transcript,€written€motions,€declarationsÐ °  Ðsubmitted€by€trial€counsel,€and/or€statements€of€trial€counsel€at€a€settled€statement€hearingÐ °  Ðhave€established€the€existence€of€such€issues.€€(See,€e.g.,€òòApalatequióó,€òòsupraóó,€82Ð °  ÐCal.App.3d€at€972„973.)€òòóóÐ ° ÐòòÓÓà  àIn€re€Steven€B.óó,€òòsupraóó,€25€Cal.3d€1€[where€stenographic€notes€of€second€day€ofÐ ° Ðjurisdictional€hearing€was€missing,€in€a€case€in€which€the€defense€had€moved€forÐ ° Ðð ðacquittalðð€on€the€grounds€of€insufficient€evidence,€California€Supreme€Court€reversed].Ð ° Ðà  àòòPeople€v.€Serratoóó,€òòsupraóó,€238€Cal.App.2d€112€[Court€of€Appeal€details€potentialÐ ° Ðappellate€claims,€including€claimed€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€in€deciding€that€lackÐ ° Ðof€any€reporterððs€transcript€of€trial€was€prejudicial].Ð ° Ðà  àòòPeople€v.€Jordanóó€(December€28,€2006)€07€C.D.O.S.€55€[questionnaires€ofÐ ° Ðprospective€jurors€were€not€retained€by€the€clerk€of€the€superior€court,€but€wereÐ ° Ðunnecessary€to€the€resolution€of€defendantððs€òòBatson/Wheeleróó€claim].׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð ° Ðà  àòòApalatequióó,€òòsupraóó,€82€Cal.App.3d€970€[lack€of€reporterððs€transcript€of€prosecutorððsÐ ° Ðclosing€argument€was€prejudicial€because€appellant€asserted€a€claim€of€prosecutorialÐ ° Ðmisconduct]Ð ° Ðòòòòóóà  àPeople€v.€Jonesóó€(1981)€125€Cal.App.3d€298€[Appears€to€involve€an€exception€toÐ °  Ðthe€general€rule€of€prejudice,€as€the€Court€of€Appeal€did€not€explicitly€address€what€issuesÐ °! Ðmight€have€been€raised€on€appeal,€yet€reversed€the€defendantððs€conviction€due€to€theÐ °" Ðdestruction€of€all€trial€transcripts].òòà À àÐ °# Ðà  àIn€re€Ian€J.óó€(1994)€22€Cal.App.4th€833€[Where€jurisdictional€hearing€in€whichÐ °$  Ðminor€admitted€petition€allegations€was€never€reported,€but€dispositional€hearing€was,€theÐ °%!! Ðminute€order€in€the€clerkððs€transcript€was€sufficient€for€full€appellate€review.€€Even€if€theÐ ° Ðcourt€speculated€that€the€judge€had€committed€an€error€during€the€jurisdictional€hearing,€itÐ ° Ðwould€not€have€been€prejudicial,€because€the€available€record€on€appeal€showed€that€anyÐ ° Ðerror€was€waived].Ð ° Ðà  àòòPeople€v.€Mooreóó,€òòsupraóó,€201€Cal.App.3d€at€58€[Finding€lack€of€prejudice€whereÐ ° Ðthe€only€reporterððs€transcripts€missing€were€portions€of€the€defense€closing€argument€andÐ °  Ðthere€was€no€indication€that€any€ð ðmalfeasanceðð€occurred€during€the€missing€period]Ð °  Ðà  àòòóóòòPeople€v.€Martinezóó€(2005)€132€Cal.App.4th€233€[in€a€case€similar€to€òòPeople€v.Ð °  ÐGallandóó,€òòsupraóó,€(December€28,€2006)€òò€€€óó€Cal.App.4th€òò€€€óó€[07€C.D.O.S.€24,€€2006€WLÐ °  Ð3804623],€the€Fourth€District€did€òònotóó€reverse€the€defendantððs€conviction€although€theÐ °  Ðmagistrate€failed€to€retain€the€original€affidavit€in€support€of€a€search€warrant€and€let€lawÐ °  Ðenforcement€keep€it,€and€the€superior€court€again€returned€the€affidavit€to€lawÐ °  Ðenforcement€after€its€òòin€cameraóó€review€conducted€to€rule€on€the€defendantððs€motion€toÐ °  Ðquash.€€The€Court€of€Appeal€found€no€reason€to€doubt€the€authenticity€of€the€confidentialÐ °  Ðaffidavit,€which,€upon€order€of€the€Court€of€Appeal,€the€superior€court€retrieved€from€lawÐ ° Ðenforcement€and€authenticated€as€the€document€it€had€reviewed.]Ð ° Ðà  àòòòòóóPeople€v.€Curryóó€(1985)€165€Cal.App.3d€349€[Only€the€last€page€of€a€searchÐ ° Ðwarrant€affidavit€was€missing,€and€the€magistrate€stated€that€this€last€page€contained€onlyÐ ° Ða€standard€recital€of€concluding€remarks.€€As€a€result,€the€last€page€was€not€necessary€toÐ ° Ðprovide€adequate€appellate€review€of€the€denial€of€the€defendantððs€motion€to€quash€theÐ ° Ðwarrant].Ð ° ÐÌò òII.ó ó€€à0  àò òEXCESSIVE€DELAY€IN€THE€APPELLATE€PROCESSó óà  àа(#(# ÐÌà  àA.€€à0 ` àòòGeneral€Standardsóó.à h àд` (#` (# Ðà  àÌÓÓà  àIf€excessive€delay€in€the€appellate€process€occurs€due€to€lengthy€efforts€by€theÐ ´ Ðcourts€to€complete€the€record€on€appeal,€a€defendant€may€raise€a€claim€that€the€delay€hasÐ ´  Ðviolated€his€federal€due€process€rights.€€Such€claims€may€be€raised€in€a€state€or€federalÐ ´" Ðhabeas€corpus€petition׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€or€in€the€appellate€briefing€when€the€record€is€finally€eitherÐ ´$  Ðcomplete€or€when€there€remain€claims€that€an€incomplete€record€is€inadequate€to€permitÐ ´&"" Ðappellate€review.€Ô‡ ŠÛ—ˆˆŠÛ—Ô€Ô#†ŠÛ—ˆˆ ŠÛ—£ƒ#Ô(òòóóSee,€e.g.,òò€Coe€v.€Thurmanóó€(1990)€922€F.2d€528,€530„532òò;€People€v.Ð ° ÐHortonóó€(1995)€11€Cal.4th€1068,€1141.)Ô‡ ŠÛ—ˆˆŠÛ—Ô€€Under€Ninth€Circuit€precedent,€if€federal€habeasÐ ° Ðrelief€is€obtained,€it€is€likely€to€beÔ#†ŠÛ—ˆˆ ŠÛ—t„#Ô€in€the€form€of€an€order€that€the€state€court€of€appealÐ ° Ðreview€the€appeal€within€a€specified€time.€€(See,€e.g.,òò€Coe€v.€Thurmanóó,€òòsupraóó,€922€F.2d€atÐ °  Ð530„532,€citingòòóóòòóó€òòSimmons€v.€Reynoldsóó€(2òòndóó€Cir.€1990)€898€F.2d€865,€869.)€€The€remedy€ofÐ °  Ðentirely€vacating€a€defendantððs€conviction€and€ordering€his€release€is€only€appropriateÐ °  Ðwhen€there€has€been€ð ða€sufficient€showing€that€the€delay€adversely€affected€a€petitioner'sÐ °  Ðchances€to€obtain€a€reversal€or€vacation€of€his€conviction€or€his€sentence.ðð€€(òòBlair€v.Ð ° ÐWoodfordóó€(2003)€319€F.3d€1087,€1088.)€Ô‡ ŠÛ—ˆˆŠÛ—Ô€Finally,€even€if€a€federal€court€finds€a€dueÐ ° Ðprocess€violation€arising€out€of€excessive€appellate€delay,€it€may€decline€to€issue€òòanyóóÐ ° Ðrelief€if,€by€the€time€the€habeas€petition€is€adjudicated€the€appeal€is€over€and€theÐ ° Ðconviction€was€affirmed.€€(òòÔ#†ŠÛ—ˆˆ ŠÛ—é‡#ÔSimmons€v.€Reynoldsóó,€òòsupraóó,€898€F.2d€at€869.)€Ô‡ ŠÛ—ˆˆŠÛ—Ôà x àÐ ° Ðà  àThe€majority€of€the€federal€circuit€courts€of€appeal,€including€the€Ninth€Circuit,Ð ° Ðhave€adopted€the€òòBarker€v.€Wingoóó€(1972)€407€U.S.€514,€speedy€trial€test€when€assessingÐ ° Ðclaims€that€appellate€delay,€whether€occasioned€by€the€inadequacy€or€incompleteness€ofÐ °  Ðthe€record€or€some€other€obstacle€in€the€appellate€process,€violates€federal€due€process.€Ð °" Ð(See,€e.g.,€òòóóòòUnited€States€v.€Smithóó€(6òòthóó€Cir.€1996)€94€F.3d€204,€206„207€[collecting€casesÐ °$  Ðfrom€second,€third,€fourth,€fifth,€ninth,€and€tenth€circuits];€òòUnited€States€v.€Hawkinsóó€(8òòthóóÐ °&"" ÐCir.€1996)€78€F.3d€348;€but€see€òòUnited€States€v.€DeLeonóó€(1òòstóó€Cir.€2006)€444€F.3d€41,€58Ð °($$ Ð[declining€to€adopt€prejudice€standard€enunciated€in€òòBarkeróó€ð ðwhole€clothðð€in€the€appellateÐ °*&& Ðdelay€context€and€stating€ð ð[i]n€our€view,€the€due€process€issues€caused€by€delay€on€appealÐ ° Ðare€more€limited€than€those€resulting€from€delay€in€the€trial€courtðð].)€€The€òòBarkeróó€test€is€aÐ ° Ðfour„part€balancing€test€involving€assessment€of€the€following€factorsòòóó:€(1)€the€length€ofÐ ° Ðthe€delay,€(2)€the€reason€for€the€delay,€(3)€the€defendantððs€assertion€of€his€right,€and€(4)Ð °  Ðthe€prejudice€to€the€defendant.€€(òòÔ#†ŠÛ—ˆˆ ŠÛ—‰#ÔòòóóCoe€v.€Thurmanóó,€òòsupraóó,€922€F.2d€at€531Ô‡ ŠÛ—ˆˆŠÛ—Ô.)€Ô#†ŠÛ—ˆˆ ŠÛ—Ý#ÔÐ °  Ðà  àWhile€some€circuits€have€also€held€that€òòDoggett€v.€United€Statesóó€(1992)€505€U.S.Ð °  Ð647,€which€held€that€there€is€a€presumption€of€prejudice€from€delay€in€bringing€aÐ °  Ðdefendant€to€trial,€also€should€be€applied€in€the€appellate€context€to€create€a€presumptionÐ ° Ðthat€excessive€delay€in€the€appellate€process€is€prejudicial€and€would€impair€the€defenseÐ ° Ðon€retrial€(òòSmithóó,€òòsupraóó,€94€F.3d€at€212;€€òòHarris€v.€Championóó€(10òòthóó€Cir.€1994)€15€F.3dÐ ° Ð1538,€1556),€the€Ninth€Circuit€Court€of€Appeals€has€explicitly€rejected€the€application€ofÐ ° ÐòòDoggettóó€to€claims€of€due€process€violations€arising€out€of€appellate€delay.€€(òòUnited€StatesÐ ° Ðv.€Mohawkóó€(1994)€20€F.3d€1480,€1487.)Ð ° Ðà  àCiting€òòCoe€v.€Thurman,€supraóó,€the€California€Supreme€Court€has€explicitlyÐ ° Ðrecognized€that€ð ð[i]n€some€circumstances,€excessive€delays€in€the€appellate€process€mayÐ °  Ðgive€rise€to€a€denial€of€due€process.ðð€€(òòPeople€v.€Hortonóó,€òòsupraóó,€11€Cal.4th€at€1141.)€Ð °" ÐHowever,€the€California€Supreme€Court€has€rejected€such€claims€in€the€capital€cases€itÐ °$  Ðhas€adjudicated€(seeòò€People€v.€Blairóó€(2005)€36€Cal.4th€686,€755„757€[collecting€cases]),Ð °&"" Ðand€repeatedly€done€so€on€the€grounds€that€the€defendant€failed€to€show€ð ðany€actualÐ °($$ Ðprejudice€as€a€result€of€the€delay,€such€as€an€impairment€of€grounds€on€appealðð€and€thatÐ °*&& Ðdelays€in€appointing€counsel€and€certifying€the€record€in€òòcapitalóó€cases€do€not€violate€dueÐ ° Ðprocess.€€(òòPeople€v.€Youngóó€(2005)€34€Cal.4th€1149,€quoting€òòHortonóó,€òòsupraóó,€11€Cal.4th€atÐ ° Ð1141;€òòPeople€v.€Blairóó,€òòsupraóó,€36€Cal.4th€at€756.)€€Ð ° Ðà  àB.€€à0 ` àòòThe€Barker€v.€Wingo€Analysisóó.а ` (#` (# Ðà  àà ` à1.€€à0 ¸ àThe€length€of€the€delay.а ¸ (#¸ (# Ðà  àAssessing€the€length€of€the€delay€that€will€trigger€due€process€concerns€is€a€thornyÐ °  Ðissue.€€As€ð ðthere€is€no€talismanic€number€of€years€or€months,€after€which€due€process€isÐ °  Ðautomatically€violated,ðð€the€assessment€will€have€to€depend€on€the€particularÐ ° Ðcircumstances€of€the€case,€including€the€complexity€of€the€case€and€the€length€of€theÐ ° Ðsentence.€€(òòCoeóó,€òòsupraóó,€922€F.2d€at€531;€see€òòHarris€v.€Championóó,€òòsupraóó,€òòóó15€F.3d€at€1561„Ð ° Ð1562.)€€The€most€that€can€be€said€as€a€general€matter€is€that€(in€adult€criminal,€non„capitalÐ ° Ðcases)€the€case€law€supports€findings€that€two€years€to€three€years€from€the€filing€of€theÐ ° Ðnotice€of€appeal€(unless€the€filing€of€the€notice€of€appeal€was€itself€delayed€by€the€State)Ð ° Ðis€within€the€range€that€could€potentially€give€rise€to€relief.€€€Ð ° ÐòòÓÓà  àIn€re€Christopher€Sóó.€(1992)€10€Cal.App.4th€1337,€1341€[in€this€juvenile€criminalÐ °  Ðcase,€the€Sixth€District€Court€of€Appeal€found,€and€the€attorney€general€agreed,€that€aÐ °! Ðsixteen„month€delay€in€the€superior€court€clerkððs€notice€of€the€filing€of€the€notice€ofÐ °" Ðappeal,€which€caused€a€nearly€two„year€delay€in€processing€the€appeal,€was€ð ðsignificant€inÐ °# Ðlength,ðð€and€the€Court€of€Appeal€conducted€a€òòBarker€v.€Wingo,€supra,óó€analysis;€the€minorÐ °$  Ðargued€and€the€Court€of€Appeal€agreed€ð ðhe€is€a€juvenile€with€the€right€to€an€expeditiousÐ °%!! Ðdetermination€of€his€appeal,€and€that€delays€such€as€the€one€he€has€experienced€may€haveÐ °&"" Ða€greater€impact€upon€minorsðð€but€the€Sixth€District€found€no€prejudice].€Ð °'## Ðòòòòóóà  àHarris€€€v.€Championóó,€òòsupraóó,€òòóó€15€F.3d€at€1560„1562€[ðða€two-year€delay€in€finallyÐ °($$ Ðadjudicating€a€direct€criminal€appeal€ordinarily€will€give€rise€to€a€presumption€ofÐ °)%% Ðinordinate€delay€that€will€satisfy€this€first€factor€in€the€balancing€testðð€but€there€may€beÐ °*&& Ðcases€in€which€less€of€a€delay€is€deemed€inordinate€and€a€longer€delay€is€not].Ð °+'' ÐòòÔ‡ ŠÛ—ˆˆŠÛ—Ôà  àUnited€States€v.€Smithóó,€òòsupraóó,€94€F.3d€204€[characterizing€the€òòHarris€v.€Ô#†ŠÛ—ˆˆ ŠÛ—ó¡#ÔChampionóó,Ð ° Ðòòsupraóó,€approach€of€presuming€a€two„year€delay€inordinate€as€a€ð ðbold€approachðð€it€needÐ ° Ðnot€consider,€the€Sixth€Circuit€found,€and€the€prosecution€conceded,€that€the€three„yearÐ ° Ðdelay€was€sufficient€to€trigger€further€inquiry€into€the€òòBarkeróó€factors]òòòòóóóóÐ ° Ðà  àòòÔ‡ ŠÛ—ˆˆŠÛ—ÔòòóóCoe€v.€Thurmanóó,€òòsupraóó,€922€F.2d€528,€531€[a€little€over€three€years€and€eightÐ ° Ðmonths€passed€between€the€filing€of€the€notice€of€appeal€and€the€date€on€which€the€federalÐ °  Ðhabeas€case€was€submitted€to€the€Ninth€Circuit;€the€Ninth€Circuit€characterized€the€delayÐ °  Ðas€ð ðhugeðð€and€ð ðalarmingðð€and€found€a€due€process€violation€and€granted€habeas€relief€inÐ °  Ðthe€form€of€an€order€that€the€state€appeals€court€decide€the€appeal€or€reverse€CoeððsÐ °  Ðconviction€within€90€daysÔ#†ŠÛ—ˆˆ ŠÛ—¤#ÔÔ‡ ŠÛ—ˆˆŠÛ—Ô.]€Ô#†ŠÛ—ˆˆ ŠÛ—¥¦#ÔÐ °  Ѐà  àòòUnited€States€v.€Antoineóó,€òòsupraóó,€906€F.2d€at€1382,€the€Ninth€Circuit€found€that€aÐ °  Ðthree„year€delay€was€ð ðsubstantialðð€and€favored€a€finding€that€due€process€was€violated,Ð °  Ðbut€the€Ninth€Circuit€did€not€itself€find€a€due€process€violation€and€remanded€for€furtherÐ °  Ðproceedings€on€the€issue€in€the€district€court.]€Ð °  Ðà  àÌà  àà ` à2.€€€à0 ¸ àThe€reason€for€the€delay€and€the€defendantððs€assertion€of€his€rights.а¸ (#¸ (# ÐÌÓÓà  àIn€cases€in€which€the€delay€results€from€the€failure€of€a€reporter€to€produceÐ ° Ðtranscripts€or€the€destruction€of€loss€of€exhibits€or€other€records€by€state€actors,€the€reasonÐ ° Ðfor€delay€should€be€attributed€to€the€State€and€should€weigh€in€favor€of€a€finding€of€a€dueÐ ° Ðprocess€violation.€€(òòÔ‡ ŠÛ—ˆˆŠÛ—ÔòòóóUnited€States€v.€Antoineóó,€òòsupraóó,€906€F.2d€at€1382;Ô#†ŠÛ—ˆˆ ŠÛ—¿ª#Ô€òòCoe€v.€Thurmanóó,Ð ° Ðòòsupraóó,€922€F.2d€at€531.)Ð ° Ðà  àÔ‡ ŠÛ—ˆˆŠÛ—ÔAnalysis€of€the€third€prong,€the€defendantððs€assertion€of€his€rights,€is€also€relativelyÐ ° Ðstraightforward.€€It€involves€consideration€of€whether€the€defendant€has€done€his€best€toÐ °! Ðpress€forward€with€his€appeal€and€vigorously€asserted€his€right€to€a€complete€record€onÐ °# Ðappeal.€€(òòÔ#†ŠÛ—ˆˆ ŠÛ—¬«#ÔÔ‡ ŠÛ—ˆˆŠÛ—ÔóóSee€Ô#†ŠÛ—ˆˆ ŠÛ—E­#ÔÔ‡ ŠÛ—ˆˆŠÛ—ÔòòAntoineóó,€òòsupraóó,€906€F.2d€at€1382.)€€€In€this€respect,€any€requests,€motions€orÐ °%!! Ðfilings€by€the€appellant€himself€or€by€counsel€pressing€for€the€record€on€appeal€òòóówill€beÐ °'## Ðconsidered€in€determining€whether€the€third€prong€favors€a€finding€of€a€due€processÐ °)%% Ðviolation.€€(òòÔ#†ŠÛ—ˆˆ ŠÛ—Ž­#ÔCoe€v.€Thurmanóó,€òòsupraóó,€922€F.2d€at€532.)Ô‡ ŠÛ—ˆˆŠÛ—ÔÐ °+'' Ðà  àà ` à3.€€€à0 ¸ àPrejudice.а¸ (#¸ (# Ðà  àPrejudice€under€the€òòBarker€v.€Wingoóó€standard€applicable€to€appellate€delay€isÐ ° Ðextremely€difficult€to€establish.€€There€are€three€categories€of€potential€prejudice:€Ô#†ŠÛ—ˆˆ ŠÛ—[¯#ÔÔ‡ ŠÛ—ˆˆŠÛ—Ô(1)Ð ° Ðoppressive€incarceration€pending€appeal;€(2)€anxiety€and€concern€of€the€convicted€partyÐ °  Ðawaiting€the€outcome€of€the€appeal;€and€(3)€impairment€of€the€convicted€personððs€groundsÐ °  Ðfor€appeal€or€of€the€viability€of€his€defense€in€case€of€retrial.€€(òòRheuark€v.€Shawóó€(5òòthóó€Cir.Ð °  Ð1980)€628€F.2d€297,€303,€fn.€8;€òòCoeóó,€òòsupraóó,€922€F.2d€at€532.)Ô#†ŠÛ—ˆˆ Šۗΰ#ÔÔ‡ ŠÛ—ˆˆŠÛ—Ô€Ô#†ŠÛ—ˆˆ Šۗ˲#ԀР°  Ðà  àImpairment€of€the€viability€of€a€defense€in€the€case€of€retrial€is€difficult€to€establishÐ ° Ðon€a€cold€appellate€record,€and€may€be€a€factor€more€amenable€to€proof€in€the€habeasÐ ° Ðcontext€if,€e.g.,€a€witness€has€died€or€is€no€longer€available.€€(See€òòPeople€v.€Blairóó,€òòsupraóó,Ð ° Ð36€Cal.4th€at€756€&€fn.€29€[capital€defendant€acknowledged€that€it€was€difficult€toÐ ° Ðestablish€prejudice€on€the€appellate€record,€and€California€Supreme€Court€declinedÐ ° Ðdefendantððs€request€for€it€to€consider€on€appeal€evidence€submitted€in€support€of€habeasÐ ° Ðclaim€of€excessive€delay].)€€Additionally,€it€is€unclear€how€the€passage€of€time€couldÐ ° Ðimpair€a€defendantððs€grounds€for€appeal,€or€how€such€impairment€could€be€proved.€Ð °  ÐòòRheuark€v.€Shawóó,€òòsupraóó,€628€F.2d€at€303,€fn.€8,€provided€an€ð ðexampleðð€of€potentialÐ °" Ðimpairment€of€the€grounds€for€an€appeal.€€It€cited€a€civil€suit€in€which€a€defendant€claimedÐ °$  Ðthat€the€delay€in€preparing€a€record€on€appeal€and€the€use€of€a€reporter€who€had€not€beenÐ °&"" Ðpresent€at€the€proceeding€resulted€in€the€omission€from€his€appellate€record€of€theÐ °($$ Ðproceedings€in€which€his€attorney€moved€for€mistrial.€€Thus,€this€aspect€of€the€prejudiceÐ °*&& Ðstandard€may€again€require,€in€essence,€an€argument€that€the€record€on€appeal€isÐ ° Ðinadequate€for€effective€appellate€review.€€Yet€a€further€complication€in€the€prejudice€inÐ ° Ðanalysis€in€these€cases€arises€out€of€the€circular€rule€that,€if€the€defendantððs€appeal€isÐ ° Ðultimately€unsuccessful,€his€incarceration€is€òòipso€factoóó€not€oppressive.€€(òòIn€re€ChristopherÐ °  ÐS.óó,€òòsupraóó,€10€Cal.App.4th€at€1342.)Ð °  Ðà  àòòCoe€v.€Thurmanóó€is€one€of€the€few€cases€to€find€prejudice€in€the€appellate€delayÐ °  Ðcontext€and€to€issue€some€relief,€and€it€involved€a€California€state€habeas€petitioner.€€€InÐ °  ÐòòCoeóó,€due€to€both€delays€in€completing€the€record€on€appeal€and€in€appointed€appellateÐ ° Ðcounselððs€filing€of€the€opening€brief,€three€years€and€eight€months€passed€from€the€filingÐ ° Ðof€the€notice€of€appeal€to€the€time€in€which€the€federal€habeas€case€was€submitted€in€theÐ ° ÐNinth€Circuit.€€During€the€interim,€the€defendant€made€numerous€òòpro€peróó€filingsÐ ° Ðaggressively€pursuing€his€appeal€and€eventually€filed€a€habeas€corpus€petition€in€theÐ ° ÐCalifornia€Supreme€Court,€claiming€inordinate€delay€and€ineffective€assistance€ofÐ ° Ðcounsel,€and€the€petition€was€denied.€€(òòIdóó.€at€532.)€€With€respect€to€prejudice,€òòCoeóó€foundÐ ° Ðthat,€the€defendant€had€ð ðundoubtedlyðð€experienced€anxiety€due€to€the€protracted€nature€ofÐ °  Ðthe€appeal,€although€he€had€not€experienced€any€more€anxiety€than€any€other€prisonerÐ °" Ðawaiting€the€outcome€of€an€appeal.€€(òòIdóó.€at€532.)€€As€to€the€third€prejudice€factor,€òòCoeóóÐ °$  Ðfound€that€ð ðthe€passage€of€[four]€years€will€make€it€more€difficult€for€petitioner€to€refreshÐ °&"" Ðthe€memory€of€witnesses€or€locate€new€exculpatory€evidence.ðð€(òòIbidóó.,€quoting€òòWheeler€v.Ð °($$ ÐKelly€óó(E.D.N.Y.€1986)€639€F.Supp.€1374,€1381.)€€òòCoeóó€ultimately€concluded:€ð ðThough€weÐ °*&& Ðhesitate€to€find€extreme€and€fulsome€prejudice€to€[petitioner],€we€believe€enough€existsÐ ° Ðhere€to€satisfy€this€fourth€factor.ðð€€(òòIbidóó.;€but€see€òòUnited€States€v.€Tuckeróó€(9òòthóó€Cir.€1993)€8Ð ° ÐF.3d€673€(en€banc)€[Ninth€Circuit€finds€that€federal€defendant€failed€to€establish€anyÐ ° Ðprejudice€resulting€from€excessive€delay€caused€by€delinquent€reporter€because€his€appealÐ °  Ðwas€meritless;€in€light€of€this€lack€of€merit,€the€delay€in€the€appeal€could€not€have€causedÐ °  Ðanxiety€and€his€grounds€for€appeal€could€not€have€been€impaired].)€€Habeas€relief€wasÐ °  Ðtherefore€granted€Ô‡ ŠÛ—ˆˆŠÛ—Ôin€the€form€of€an€order€that€the€California€Court€of€Appeals€decide€theÐ °  Ðappeal€or€reverse€the€defendantððs€conviction€within€90€days.Ô#†ŠÛ—ˆˆ ŠÛ—'Ä#ÔÐ ° Ðà  àÌà  à