No. 18-8301

Michael Daniel Cuero v. Ralph Diaz, Acting Secretary, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

Lower Court: Ninth Circuit
Docketed: 2019-03-06
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response RequestedResponse WaivedRelisted (2)IFP
Tags: appellate-review court-of-appeals court-of-appeals-interpretation district-court due-process judicial-review mandate plea-agreement remand rule-21 sentencing sentencing-consequences state-court supreme-court-mandate writ-of-mandamus
Key Terms:
DueProcess HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference: 2019-10-01 (distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)

What was the import of the Court's prior decision?

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW This Court previously reversed and remanded petitioner’s case to the court of appeals. The judges of that court, however, have different interpretations of this Court’s decision and how to apply it. Under one interpretation, the court of appeals must send the case back to the state court for it to consider the appropriate remedy for the prosecution’s breach of the plea agreement. Under the other interpretation, the court of appeals can do nothing but affirm the district court’s denial of petitioner’s claim. These disparate interpretations have real world consequences. Without this Court’s further intervention, the petitioner may be subject to a reimposed life sentence with no recourse. Thus, the question presented for review is: what was the import of the Court’s prior decision?! Otherwise stated, whether the court of appeal’s majority-decision is inconsistent with the Court’s opinion in this case. ' To the extent this petition should be presented as a motion for clarification under Rule 21, or as a petition for a writ of mandamus under Rule 20.3, the petitioner respectfully requests the Court construe it as such. See In re Sanford Fork & Took Co., 160 U.S. 247, 255 (1895) (“If the Circuit Court mistakes or misconstrues the decree of this court, and does not give full effect to the mandate, its action may be controlled, either upon a new appeal . . . or by a writ of mandamus to execute the mandate of this court.”). --prefix-

Docket Entries

2019-10-07
Petition DENIED.
2019-06-27
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/1/2019.
2019-06-19
Reply of petitioner Michael Cuero filed.
2019-06-17
Brief of respondent Ralph Diaz in opposition filed.
2019-06-05
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including July 1, 2019.
2019-05-30
Motion to extend the time to file a response from May 31, 2019 to July 1, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.
2019-04-26
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including May 31, 2019.
2019-04-24
Motion to extend the time to file a response from May 1, 2019 to May 31, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.
2019-04-01
Response Requested. (Due May 1, 2019)
2019-03-21
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/12/2019.
2019-03-07
Waiver of right of respondent Ralph Diaz to respond filed.
2019-02-26
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due April 5, 2019)

Attorneys

Michael Cuero
Devin Jai BursteinWarren & Burstein, Petitioner
Devin Jai BursteinWarren & Burstein, Petitioner
Ralph Diaz
Anthony Da SilvaCalifornia Department of Justice Office of the Att, Respondent
Anthony Da SilvaCalifornia Department of Justice Office of the Att, Respondent