[an error occurred while processing this directive]
News from the Director

July 3, 2003

This updates the main Stogner article which appears next to this one on the home page of the Website. The Attorney General responded immediately to the Motion for Summary Reversal by saying: (1) they did not oppose the motion; (2) they waive oral argument; and (3) they stipulate, if the court grants the motion, to immediate issuance of the remittitur.

The Court of Appeal (Division 5) then immediately granted the motion and issued the remittitur.

Thus, a Motion for Summary Reversal is clearly an effective method for raising the Stogner issue, provided:

(1) All the counts of conviction were time-barred as of January 1, 1994 when section 803(g) was enacted. (This usually means that the offense had to be before January 1, 1988, since most of the sex offenses covered by 803(g) had a 6-year statute of limitations; however, you should check your specific case.) If you have a mixed case, with some convictions timely or unrelated to 803(g), you would not be entitled to summary reversal.

(2) As noted in the main Stogner article, this motion probably would not work in a guilty plea case, since there would be no certificate of probable cause. In that situation, we recommend a habeas writ in Superior Court as the best likely method.


[an error occurred while processing this directive]