HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 10232001 - C.9 CLAIM
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
BOARD ACTION: Oct 23 , 2001
Claim Against the County, or District Governed by )
the Board of Supervisors, Routing Endorsements, ) NOTICE TO CLAIMANT
and Board Action. All Section references are to ) The copy of this document mailed to you is your
California Government Codes. ) notice of the action taken on your claim by the
Board of Supervisors. (Paragraph IV below), given
Pursuant to Government Code Section 913 and
915.4. Please note all
AMOUNT: Exceeds $10,000 ]F
OCT t1-1001
CLAIMANT: Thomas Napolitano & Rose Napolitano COUNTY COUNSEL
MARTINEZ CALIF.
ATTORNEY: Thomas Brandi DATE RECEIVED: October 9, 2001
ADDRESS: 44 Montergomery St#1050 BY DELIVERY TO CLERK ON: October 9. 2001
San Francisco, CA 94104
BY MAIL POSTMARKED:
I. FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors TO: County Counsel
Attached is a copy of the above-noted claim.
JOHN SWEETp } /�
Dated: October 10, 2001 By: Deputy
II. FROM: County Counsel TO: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors `
(
/This claim complies substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2.
( ) This Claim FAILS to comply substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2, and we are so notifying claimant. The
Board cannot act for 15 days (Section 910.8).
( ) Claim is not timely filed. The Clerk should return claim on ground that it was filed late and send warning of
claimant's right to apply for leave to present a late claim (Section 911.3).
( ) Other:
Dated: i0-1(-6( By: _L/_e44 �i!_�, Deputy County Counsel
III. FROM: Clerk of the Board TO: County Counsel (1) County Administrator(2)
( ) Claim was returned as untimely with notice to claimant (Section 911.3).
IV. BOARD ORDER: By unanimous vote of the Supervisors present:
( This Claim is rejected in full.
( ) Other:
I certify that this is a true and correct copy of the Board's Order entered in its minutes for this date.
Dated: (� „ , �/ JOHN SWEETEN, CLERK, By - �� ; � U, Deputy Clerk
WARNING (Gov. code section 913)
Subject to certain exceptions, you have only six (6) months from the date this notice was personally served-or deposited
in the mail to file a court action on this claim. See Government Code Section 945.6. You may seek the advice of an
attorney of your choice in connection with this matter. If you want to consult an attorney, you should do so
immediately. *For Additional Warning See Reverse Side of This Notice.
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING
I declare under penalty of perjury that I am now, and at all times herein mentioned, have been a citizen of the United
States, over age 18; and that today I deposited in the United States Postal Service in Martinez, California, postage fully
prepaid a certified copy of this Board Order and Notice to Claimant, addressed to the claimant as shown above.
Dated: �(��� �'�`�//a��i ()I JOHN SWEETEN, CLERK Byla/� Ze�10&74;�A—.- Deputy Clerk
--o
This warning does not apply to claims which are not
subject to the California Tort Claims Act such as actions
in inverse condemnation, actions for specific relief such
as mandamus or injunction, or Federal Civil Rights
claims. The above list is not exhaustive and. legal
consultation is essential to understand all the separate
limitations periods that may apply. The limitations period
within which suit must be filed may be shorter or longer
depending on the nature of the claim. Consult the specific
statutes and cases applicable to your particular claim.
The County of Contra Costa does not waive any of its
rights under California Tort Claims Act nor does it•waive
rights under the statutes of limitations applicable to
actions not subject to the California Tort Claims Act.
�OOZ T 1 100
RECEIVED
1 OCT 9 2001
LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS J. BRANDI
THOMAS J. BRANDI, #53208 x:30
2 CLERK BOANO OF SUPERVISORS
TERENCE D. EDWARDS, #168095 CONTRA COSTA CO.
3 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 1050
San Francisco, CA 94104
4 Telephone: 415/989-1800
5 Facsimile: 415/989-1801
6 Attorneys for Claimants:
THOMAS DOMINIC NAPOLITANO
7 ROSE NAPOLITANO
8
9
CLAIM OF:
10
11 THOMAS DOMINIC NAPOLITANO and )
12 ROSE NAPOLITANO ) CLAIM FOR PERSONAL
INJURIES AND LOSS OF
13 Claimants, ) CONSORTIUM
14 V. )
15 ) [Government Code §910]
EAST CONTRA COSTA TRANSIT )
16 DISTRICT, THE COUNTY OF CONTRA )
COSTA, AND THE CITY OF PITTSBURG )
17 )
Respondents. )
18 )
19 TO THE EAST CONTRA COSTA TRANSIT DISTRICT, THE COUNTY OF
20 CONTRA COSTA, AND THE CITY OF PITTSBURG:
21 Claimants THOMAS DOMINIC NAPOLITANO, and ROSA NAPOLITANO, his
22 wife, claim damages from the EAST CONTRA COSTA TRANSIT DISTRICT, THE
23 COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA AND THE CITY OF PITTSBURG and states as
24 follows:
25 (a) Claimants postal address for this claim is: c/o Law Offices of Thomas J.
26 Brandi, 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 1050, San Francisco, California 94104.
27 (b) The post office address to which Claimants desire notices to be sent is:
28 c/o Law Offices of Thomas J. Brandi, 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 1050, San Francisco,
- I -
CLAIM FOR PERSONAL INJURIES[Govemment Code§910]
1 .
California 94104.
2
3 (c) This claim is based on the personal injuries sustained by claimant Thomas
4 Dominic Napolitano and loss of consortium sustained by Rose Napolitano on May 15,
5 2001, at approximately 5:28 p.m. at the intersection of Harbor Street and East 12`h Street in
6 the City of Pittsburg, County of Contra Costa, State of California. On this particular
7 evening, claimant Thomas D. Napolitano was crossing Harbor Street in the marked
8 crosswalk for pedestrians on the west side of the street. Before claimant reached the other
9 side of Harbor Street, he was struck in the crosswalk by a vehicle owned, operated,
10 maintained and controlled by East Contra Costa Transit District and driven by Daniel Belk
11 Zwickel, an agent or employee of the East Contra Costa Transit District, and/or the County
12 of Contra Costa, and/or the City of Pittsburg, who was acting at said time and place in the
13 course and scope of his employment with East Contra Costa Transit District.
14 The above-described accident was caused by the negligence and carelessness of
15 Respondents' bus driver, Mr. Zwickel, who struck claimant, as described above, and such
16 negligence is imputed to Respondents. Respondents were also negligent in the care,
17 service and maintenance of the subject bus and in the selection, hiring, retention, and
18 training of Mr. Zwickel.
19 The accident was caused by respondents City of Pittsburg and County of Contra
20 Costa and/or their employees for reasons including, but not limited to, acts and/or
omissions which resulted in:
21
22 failure to warn of, and/or prevent and/or correct a "dangerous condition" (a
23 condition of property that creates a substantial [as distinguished from a
24 minor, trivial or insignificant] risk of injury when such property or adjacent
25 property is used with due care in a manner in which it is reasonably
26 foreseeable that it will be used) on, or immediately adjacent to, public
27 property;
28 failure to provide and/or maintain adequate signs, signals, devices, dividers,
pavement grooving, rumple strips, botts dots, channelization, pavement,
- 2 -
CLAIM FOR PERSONAL INJURIES [Government Code§9101
1
2 shoulders, and striping at or near the Accident Location;
3
4 Respondents City of Pittsburg and County of Contra Costa had actual and/or
5 constructive notice of the dangerous condition and a sufficient amount of time prior to
6 claimant's injuries to have taken measures to protect the public against the dangerous
condition.
7
(d) As far as is known at the time of the presentation of this claim, Claimant
8
9 Thomas D. Napolitano claims damages for medical costs, lost wages, transportation
10 expenses, pain and suffering, as well as property loss and/or damage and other damages
arising therefrom. And claimant Rose Napolitano claims damages for loss of consortium.
11
12 (e) The name or names of the public employee or employees causing the injury,
13 damages or loss is unknown, except for the identity of the bus driver.
14 (f) The name or names of the public employee or employees causing the injury,
15 damages or loss is unknown to claimant, other than the name and address of the bus driver:
16 Mr. Daniel Belk Zwickel, 2150 Geoff Avenue, Pittsburg, CA 94565.
17 (g) The amount claimed exceeds ten thousand dollars ($10,000) as of the date
of the presentation of this claim.
18
19 The jurisdiction over the.-claim would rest in Superior Court.
20 Date: October 4, 2001 LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS J. BRANDI
21
By: a4171wi
22 THOMAS J. B I
23 Attorney for Claimants
24
25
26
27
28
- 3 -
CLAIM FOR PERSONAL INJURIES[Government Code§9101
' APPLICATION TO FILE LATE CLAIM
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
BOARD ACTION
Oct 23, 01
Application to File Late Claim ) NOTICE TO APPLICANT
Against the County, Routing ) The copy of this document mailed to you is your
Endorsements, and Board Action. ) notice of the action taken on your application by
(All Section References are to ) the Board of Supervisors (Paragraph III, below),
California Government Code.) ) given pursuant to Government Code Sections 911.8 and
915.4. NG" below.
RECEIVED o3jN6m a�mD
Claimant: James E. Hines
Attorney: None OCT 1'5 2001 OCT 0 8 2001
Address: 45 Washington Park#1 Mill Valley, CA 94941 CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISO;=" COUNTY COUNSEL.
CONTRA COSTA CO. MARTINEZ CALIF.
Amount: Unknown By delivery to Clerk on Oct 4, 2001
Date Received: Oct 4 , 2001 By mail, postmarked on Recvd from Superior Court
I. FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors TO: County Counsel
Attached is a copy of the above noted Application to File Late C1
DATED: Oct 5, 2001 JOHN SWEETEN, Clerk BY Deputy�/ De ut Clerk
B. FROM: County Counsel TO: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
( ) The Board should grant this Application to File Late Claim (Section 911.6).
( The Board should deny this Application to File Late Claim (Section 911.6).
DATED: 1D-1.?-L11 SILVANO MARCHER, County Counsel, By � `�---Deputy
III. BOARD ORDER By unanimous vote of Supervisors present
(Check one only)
( ) This Application is granted (Section 911.6).
(y� This Application to File Late Claim is denied (Section 911.6)
I certify that this is a true and correct copy of the Board's Ord enter d in _its m'nutes for this date.
DATE: JOHNSWEETEN, Clerk, By Deputy Clerk
WARNING (Gov. Code §911.8)
If you wish to file a court action on this matter, you must first petition the appropriate court for an order
relieving you from the provisions of Government Code Section 945.4 (claims presentation requirement). See
Government Code Section 946.6. Such petition must be filed with the court within six (6) months fsrom the date your
application for leave to present a late claim was denied.
You may seek the advise of any attorney of your choice in connection with this matter. If you want to consult an
attorney, you should do so immediately.
IV. FROM: Clerk of the Board TO: (1) County Counsel (2) County Administrator
Attached are copies of the above Application. We notified the applicant of the Board's action on this
Application by mailing a copy of this document, and a memo thereof has been filed and endorsed on the Board's copy
of this Claim in accordance with Section 29703.
�
DATED: t��.c tu�Ie/! ��� JOHNSWEETEN, Clerk, By, Deputy Clerk
V. FROM: (1) County Counsel (2) County Administrator TO: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
Received copies of this Application and Board Order.
DATED: County Counsel, By
County Administrator, By
APPLICATION TO FILE LATE CLAIM
. . �;.:
c..Ir t' �..�.. y , ']�i�r'J t�Jv �{��'•Ci a:? �iu.
;-r:;r.. .
4
I •
Office of the County Counsel Contra Costa County
651 Pine Street, 9th Floor Phone: 335-1800
Martinez, CA 94553 Fax: 646-1078
CONFIDENTIAL
Date: October 3, 2001
To: Gina Martin, Clerk of the Board of SupeXyCQ-
s
From: Silvano B. Marchesi, County Counsel
By: Gregory C. Harvey, Assistant Coupunsel _
Subj: Late claim application of James Earl Hines
The attached documentation was received from the Mary Ann Mason of this
Office who received it from Judge Richard Flier of the Superior Court on October 3,
2001. Ms. Mason provided the document to me for handling.
Please treat this as an application to file a late claim and handle in the usual
manner.
cc Honorable Richard Flier
Contra Costa Superior Court
Mary Ann Mason, Deputy County Counsel
HAMEMO-STD\M EMO-FRM.WPD
I, �I
i
RECEIVED
I
OCT 0 4 2001
-p-ERVISORS
CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY CLIENT COMMUNICATION
1
People v. James Earl Hines
Docket #96-0234-3
(This is the docket that was in trial in my department. Defendant was found guilty of all charges
and enhancements. He represented himself. The case was prosecuted by Dirk Manoghian)
Charges
Count one, 11350 Health& Safety Code (Possession of Heroin), 11-21-95
Count two, 113 50 Health& Safety Code(Possession of Cocaine), 11-21-95
Penal Code 1170.12b & c---Three Strikes
10-27-76, San Francisco County, Kidnaping for Ransom
10-26-90, Contra Costa, Robbery in inhabited dwelling
10-26-90, Contra Costa, Robbery in inhabited dwelling
Penal code section 667.5---State Prison Prior
2-25-91, Solano County, 182.4 Penal Code
Penal Code section 1203e(4)
2-27-77, Solano County, 182.4 Penal Code
10-29-77, San Francisco County, Penal Code section 209, Kidnaping for Ransom
2-25-91, Contra Costa County, Penal Code section 211-212.5 (Robbery, etc.)
1 haven't verified the other docket number, but I believe Contra Costa Docket #902447-2 may be
the Robbery convictions out of 1990. That was a plea. I believe the victim's purse was located in
Marin County. Supposedly, officers there could link it to Hines. When those officers are
subsequently contacted, the link up cannot be made and the evidence is also screwed up.
x
v�
�ti 1
�4
yr
X51
� t
'� 4z
4t
Z Z
Qa
Qa
a.
Q�
aQ
RE. 'CAVED as
Z14 14
SEP", 272001 Wd
Q
s +a
• 5 his -•��/ �-z�.��
6
7
Lie
9 I . � _ _-
11 I'c
12 ,
14
15
16 ,
17f� ? G'Qa C° 4t1 0 Svc" c/r S`o 2 1
19 �j d
20
21
. 22
• A-)
24
25
26
27
28�Q r
1,
;Y�n�'•r~A.�l;ii n.{�'Y:' ��'r+,,,}����.Y �e C:.r.��:f''`'i,R,'`,;i'�� .yg'..•�?'`l���l�`'��' Y�.;.qn ,c' s.y:^'v,.tr.� '.^'e'!^fir+-..;- y.
;r41A,•,t' 'f ?r t. �ynk.s" .r,�y:'..r;''�t`Y'''�{ s.,YF.f. is.:hWq,�l+}.!{!':X1;:Ff•�E'� t.s'' `.,- s� .. ���• 'ii k-� ?�•. IN
�ayl.^,�4e..•"�r•.V•�7r+R,`t�'-�•' te'�f,;:r;',: ':�r' .:•{'�•,r�• :��t-.�.t""r :�t ,..�.. ��y.:y.><•�•.,' -;':r:'•r�'1 �.
�•�+�s�','L`'.l'.;r�„—'�'�'',.•;rt• ,,I`.' Ilr'!C:•' ., �e.`� :f�„4.`:�:,1�1!'a�"� 1
.' it I.� , -ir�,11 J.Gi,�n •!. - � �.•�
J
rs
f F
q0AJ
1
i0coop
r
r4
v nA4 4 0, ;x o c) G cj ,Okir
0 voop. ;?
37 S�/�
Cr
1
{ a' 7—.2
IoA KO
.i��r' •! •� lir-Y 6
k =4 :t
'C.
� e r
ids Y� •' '�"•'�"!�f�;£yI.'. J' ��_:;�+:�t'.5'!`.•'`:,j.,.;.:. �., .'.'',^.,?s,;=`r`i: � - x-�•' "±�.
1tkr:" �.�'i�-w... ���.+7y^y„Y.:.�ylf-,,.'`4y'"..;,3,G�f+°�` f,.:.y.^-7�!S��-+k,`:.t�;n'- •Y-=.•}.�c`.E'=:r"` ZIP;,-_
t `�j- s•. ,rub, ,7.• .. r
mom OP
} 4 str,?= �i�t�::"?i ':jet. ''';j! +..'�:`. ''�•. �'�, ',.:.�..� -_ f� <K�. �' :l•` —•f:.. _
��SSa,`.'`i`±- �',i*tire.. - t. 'f'• 'f�"''�c•_' .'a•�r'
t
k
/,Oo.fr
x
1114
CCS • � �
.0 0
' r �
t .
„ '' / ' /e 4
i
02
rw•�. •Cis',"�.�•:ly,�, ...e. ? � �{:n'
.lam-i! .�..'. _ { ,�,*�gj4 •! I( � +h
:7:;.y..�+. n2!�S,7c: Yr •y:.:ri� l.Y:', c.t i7!� 'k�!� .Cti `L" E,.
:dot; .['. �:•4 ..r !; +'t'f�5.• :•'`. :r.- t s:''+.:. '%•,, - �,
::.�/�• ,j.• ,,y.e,.r:. _fo. '.L•t� .i!t":•.'.,:r.fr:• 'CYC• �'j:..: _
,E.. .Y•j;'i, 1..,t4 ,q .t.',. .1..,, •,t •�,`+`�J.i'1it:4 r' �.
_ t.!i`:}:rr�%T.1 r=a•' :1.. •r - ,Y',r!•;.' .Sj:'i;.: 'Y J':•�' t... `:t';
SUPPLEMENT TO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
(1) December 26, 1990, at approximately 11:00 a.m. to 2:45 p.m.,. and September 1990.
(2) Municipal Court in Richmond California and Superior court of Contra COSTA County,
respectively in People vs. Hines, Case No. 902447-2.
(3) Complete departure from Judicial roles by Thomas KENSOK and David G. Brown, deputy
district attomey(s) of Contra Costa County in manufacturing/fabricating certain physical
evidence, i.e., IDENTIFICATION, AND VICTIM'S PURSE IN BAD FAITH TO OBTAIN
CRIMINAL CONVICTION WITH MALICIOUS PROSECUTION TO FALSE IMPRISON
CLAIMANT FOR 9 YEARS. SEE ATTACHED MAY 30, 2000, ORDER FROM FIRST
APPELLATE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS, IN PEOPLE VS. HNES A088737, (GRANTING
HABEAS CORPUS REGARDING FABRICATED EVIDENCE).
ON FEBRUARY 2, 2001, DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY DISMISSED CAUSE OF ACTION.
(4)DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY(S) DAVID G. BROWN &THOMAS KENSOK, AND
CONTRA COSTA , JAMES PALMER, DISTRICT ATTORNEY INVESTIGATOR AND
NUMEROUS DOES OF THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT.
CLAIMANT ASSERTS SAID DEFENDANTS INSTITUTED PROCEEDINGS
WITHOUT ANY PROBABLE CAUSE, MANUFACTURED tOTIFICATION IN THE municipal
COURT AND SUBSEQUENTLY MANUFACTURED EVIDENCE OF A PURSE AND
IDENTIFICATION OF AND SECTION 8 HOUSING CERTIFICATE FROM CONTRA COSTA
COUNTY WHICH WAS FALSE AND NON EXISTENT TO OBTAIN SAID CONVICTION>
claimant ALLEGES SAID DEFENDANTS OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE, COVER-UP THEIR
CRIMES AND CONSPIRED WITH NUMEROUS PUBLIC OFFICIALS-INCLUDING DEPUTY
ATTORNEY GENERAL MORRIS BEATUS OF SAN FRANCISCO- IN AN ON-GOING
PATTERN AND ENTERPRISE OF RACKETEERING AND CORRUPTION FROM 1990 UNTIL
THE YEAR 2000>
the PROCEEDING TERMINATED IN CLAIMANTS FAVOR, THERE NEVR WAS ANY
EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT GROUNDLESS CHARGES IN SUPPORT OF ANY CRIMINAL
CONVICTION ABSENT THE MANUFACTURING OF THE IDENTIFICATION--PROBABLE
CAUSE-AND THE PURSE , IDENTIFICATION AND SECTION HOUSING CERTIFICATE
FROM CONTRA DCOSTA COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY.
THE SO-CALLED RESPONSIBLE OFFICIALS, KNOWN 81 UNKNOWN, KNEW OR
REASONABLY SHOULD HAVE KNOWN CRIME AND FAILED TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT
AFTER BEING NOTIFIED BY PLAINT/CLAIMANT ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS> THE
PUBLIC OFFICIALS HAD THE POWER TO CORRECT THE VIOLATIONS OF CLAIMANT
CIVIL RIGHTS AND WAS UNDER A DUTY AND AUTHORITY TO CORRECT SAID.
VIOLATIONS OF CLAIMANTS RIGHTS.
Claimant ALLEGES THAT ALL THE COUNTY OFFICERS CONSPIRED TO OBSTRUCT
JUSTICE TO COVER UP THIS CONTINUING WRONG WITH A RECKLESS INDIFFERENCE
TO CLAIMANT CIVIL RIGHTS. Claimant ALLEGES ALL THE DEFENDANTS ACTS WERE
WITH ILL WILL, WITH A DESIRE TO INJURE CLAIMANT WITH MALICE AND RACIAL
ANIMUS BECAUSE OF CLAIMANTS AFRICAN RACE AND BLACK COLORE AND FOR NO
OTHER REASON AGAINST THE PEACE AND DIGNITY OF THE UNITED STATES
CONSTITUTION. THE PROSECUTORS FAILED TO.TRAIN, SUPERVISE OR DISCIPLINE
= :. .' SAID OFFICIALS TO CONSTITUTE A POLICY OF DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE WHICH
WAS A COMPLETE DEPARTURE FROM ALL JUDICIAL ROLE OF FUNCTIONS IN•THIS
INSTANT CAUSE. :x
MOREOVER SAID DEFENDANTS/CONSPIRED TO OBSTRUCT THE DUE COURSE OF.:`•
JUSTICE' WITH INTENT TO DENY CLAIMANT THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW 1TO r
BE SECURE IN PERSON AND PROPERTY AS IS ENJOYED BY WHITE FOLKS.
SADDEFENbANT DEPRIVED CLAIMANT OF STATE AND FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS TO DUE
PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION AND ALLDEFENDANT ACTED UNDER THE COLOR
.{s
OF STATE LAW.
(5) GARY YANCY , DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY.
DAVID G. BROWN, DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY.
JAMES PALMER, DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S INVESTIGATOR
THOMAS KENSOK, DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY (MANUFACTURED IDENTIFICATION &
PROBABLE CAUSE)
GEORGE YAMMAMOT-COUNTY SHERIFF (MANUFACTURED A SO-CALLED PHOTO
IDENTIFICATION THAT THE WITNESS/VICTIM SUBSEQUENTLY TESTIFIED NEVER TOOK
PLACE).
JOHN &JANES DOES ONE THRU FIFTY.
(6) (1), 6 YEARS OF STATE PRISON INCARCERATION, (2)MENTAL DISTRESS&
ANGUISH, LOSS OF WAGES, COMPENSATORY, PUNITIVE, EXEMPLARY AND
UNSPECIFIED DAMAGES OF THIS CONTINUING WRONG TO INURE CLAIMANT AND
DENY CLAIMANT THE RIGHT TO DEMONSTRATE ACTUAL INNOCENCE AT A JURY TRIAL
BY DISMISSING CHARGES BASED ON CLAIMANT'S NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE,-
WHICH-INDISPUTABLY PROVES`THE PUBLIC OFFICIALS MANUFACT3ED EVIDENCE OF
PROBAI3LE CAUSE TO CAUSE CLAIMANT TO FALSE IMPRISON FOR YEARS.
-THE PUBLIC OFFICIALS VIOLATED : (1) STATE LAW:
MALICIOUS PROSECUTION
FALSE IMPRISONMENT (6 TO 7 YEARS)
NEGLIGENCE
OTHER-TOO NUMEROUS TO LIST.
(2) FEDERAL AW:
TITLE 42 USCS, 1981, 1M.,-1985, 1986, 1988
RICO ACT, TITLE 18 RACKEERTERRING.
UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
FIRST, FOURTH, FIFTH, SIX, EIGHTH & FOURTEENTH
RACISM, BECAUSE OF CLAIMANT AFRICAN RACE.
(7)TO BE PROVIDED UPON REQUEST, IF NEEDED
(8)TO BE PROVIDED UPON REQUEST,'IF NEEDED.
(9)TOiEPROVIDEDtMN REQUEST, IF NEEDED.
.4
1JAM83
EARL EIN
41
IN PRO pER i 's•,'' �;;'` ?•j�C�'''
S:� •-'tr`T. ..,^I::,.., .. �{.�r,"3:•:,: y'Y ':4.'' fi„:+.,.'� ,;i+••' -t•.`..'-u
:., "+,.. ;rF- - }.,.�•.,,,,?.r =t^'ti xa'Yt+ 'h�v:• f;k.... '`i, _ ''e-:ice'. •.. �. n+•'F ,:..a.+ y
•.i:. •'.a.. h �'iit�l i' '� rr-.-�.: 4 - � t� ft.-.' '.r` ft-'''�;:..� ��p;,.. :a�+,. ,�s}.. .v,` 'F..f`
T r.+i*"' .i r6 •,,4:fit./Y'„3. �'.Y''. t :,r. 'd4?:".t }x•, w"�+. +.+ .K:, -.:.,t, d?' .1.- •:7�. :'J. 1,
r';Crr. ����yy .i' ,{t':ir.y(y��,�"Y .s. :'64'...)�:"..•� �✓' ^.i,`� i:i��:..o, x•:t+`•' .F '2`i`\.,�•. :e' ,Ifh7:�,
�t "t.T•• '?4T+ .1?, -,'"4Y�"•e... �:i'�G. �.Y ie:"'''� {�st- ��L:i4� .S ,5 ,.K 'w. .i��: 6',••• .,!A. _ .''i^.ir,..y;. '.T-.
��;�#'q«T,'^.�"(�,t-��`+ t,2., 5� .;t' ..� .w;�,l s�:';•" y ,,k'.` y:,fi'�. �';l,';� ;,�: r ��,' -f:��'�:t'-•.h.-r�
t`,,•_ YYtnrfh:�,"3:x�r„�. +�%'�;1" ,S'� +,a'.�.; (I,{ �t:y'',t.4' �jy.N...,'i^• ig..<..,'.Iy"�•, .o;.« k"-'t.. t+�- ::rs,^,"Y ; �,y� �,�. �[,<a'- }-::'�'h ,i.~•�t. -
,{ „ a a!^�'1= tty- "•`..r��i1 ,i ;i-5.Jt4 'Fr, ''FK`e.~d��3r'^-+,° [t�c .�:i. :�-" ;-ti'-'tom ?f j:.,'Ep,.�, o t .y',,.•,?4��r �t '�t+ '4,.���1•'_-^ ^ :.v'y.
•ry1.-,r'••Y4;..c� :'s`. �', �7 �'�i k.a�.._i �...+-: .�.: !t:.. ,tl��r•.r•'� .d-'�"' 1' ,,}
r.'p,P. .+,'+it •'r.+ :`L"t,e.. .,j4 i•� Y`^ •i:'^tb'T. -:.�• .��R��rr:�.��„
r' .�+:�•,��°j�{y..�� .tib,:��if:' �:� � .. � .���- {a:� ��:•�`�_ .��}; ;�.
I`~y`�,'r: �Yi4:`Vi'i,,l�-..�?.�"�'. •.•t8.: {' L•'�... 1` 4'�it�^", .i�,Fili,
4',atBY At47 t:3f�� f:�p a ?.IaY��{^,f�,�stn•t,,.. s�t F t�.. .•.:-:fix`,•
rye '• " a•� -I' •}:rlf`.'. W:' *p :/a'i'�'' i.'�s 'G''+iM1'�+�r•.s�•iiil•1�'4 '••
pt
ult
INATE y:+. :: ; 7 t,
10 AND gOR t)F CALIF `t �:�;�; ;
. � � , ::.:. .
THS
COUNTYORNIA
Op cot,CONTRA ;.• '4.
COSTA
12.
,
T -Z if NO.
'' JAMES EARL
¢'r. ---
l�
VERIFICATION
Is
17
`p.:*,i �.yf�M,.; r iur .`3",t _ y+;fi. +. _•• `Eti'z:Y+-,'+.,t., -5 .�' --}?.;•.,.,...'.._,;;_;«. .Vg'12 ,
the: :} .:} ICAT
,�;�`� ._:�'. �';.. •:< , ��.'-= �-a;; M1 . , . `u n d ION
r.i,.§w•,•.y, l.•1 •uy7__ ;4:`;:.•ti _ :t t"S j,C�'1'j'�a,. _ r "--..... ;,. _
4w�,:, i:F',Va. .*�`trL,. - ,`„ ,-r .. •y.,.�.i.j r �� :a..• '• •, ;r
a ,
fends t `_f:,:.%'y s •; . `�-,r�
i d r, n
i, ff avi i this
• t I Sact.
and know on.
�2 knowledge, a jts contents, and I have read the a j 1
the bove
23 Xcept. as to those same is
tru
24 my information. Matte rs which are e of my own i
�. _ •.,.i"' I declare Stated it it Or
25 7 and svcome Under penalty o f
Per-
that th
= : e
DATED: above is true
AM S
�'f?'.�'t=���:;•�':::4..��,• •, :��' I ty EAR L
OPRIA
P E NES, PRO
RSONA
f
4,�A.
S�YLGE 9Y 1a�e. �accY Ca Ch`
FO t a
i acn n° b()/IS
All
�7so
a QatcY
a°d ss ;,s• .
a�► a� leas
r Oft•• ce t
2 L of a i
�;:,Ar
' r::.. ♦�.�' ♦.,{! �'• h-A,`r4'! j//jam/� •.. .:K fr":'.'
jjj yf:':. 4?,i�,��••�rY� war :.� �T.�� r{•tr,,.:,.�,•. ' _ { .. _ �+:: " J�`-.�:7
"(.��•r.,,;moi., ,�.�+t {� ( �•.rq�:,��,•�}7�. ,� (•.+4':... � - :t.!. .:rte �• ,• i-^ ��_.i..," •
,t"a�'N-j„<r�' ~rt r �'�.�t'y. � 5 '��! �r';' •<i'-:�:-`•" 1r'+i;M}; .:=t'�?:ti'. '�4�� ��s;.��{^,•4'`y� ` ,�
5
MEW_
a. f tJ
�" r, �� ..,- .. _' syn •.
f�.xy 3
4og�ge tet"
ell—
pY 3•.� ea eve ��,/ S Zc�"
0
13.
1a "
�xue
19
for
+c
at
L °£ p Q
f� �.� ���_=..�r.-•y:' o e°ti. a to ec N
C utea arG
t yq•5 F,yceof
���,��:��•:�X26;.. Cs• . .
APPLICATION TO FILE LATE CLAIM
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
BOARD ACTION
Oct 23, 2001
Application to File Late Claim ) NOTICE TO APPLICANT
Against the County, Routing ) The copy of this document mailed to you is your
Endorsements, and Board Action. ) notice of the action taken on your application by
(All Section References are to ) the Board of Supervisors (Paragraph III, below),
California Government Code.) given pursuant to Government Code Sections 911.8 and
915.4. Please note the "WARNING"below.
Claimant: James E. Hines
Attorney: None
Address: 45 Washington Park#1 Mill Valley, CA 94941
Amount: Unknown By delivery to Clerk on Oct 18, 2001
Date Received: Oct 18, 2001 By mail, postmarked on Oct 17, 2001
I. FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors TO: County Counsel
Attached is a copy of the above noted Application to File Late C1
DATED: Oct 18 2001 JOHN SWEETEN, Y P Y Clerk B / ,l De ut Clerk
I1. FROM: County Counsel TO: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
( ) The Board should grant this Application to File Late Claim (Section 911.6).
(l� The Board should deny this Application to File Late Claim (Section 911.6).
DATED: ��'1�' �� SILVANO MARCHESI, County Counsel, By�� 4LZ(i_ Cov-9--bc— Deputy
III. BOARD ORDER By unanimous vote of Supervisors present
(Check one only)
( ) This Application is granted(Section 911.6).
OQ This Application to File Late Claim is denied (Section 911.6)
I certify that this is a true and correct copy of the Board's Orer entered i its minutes for this date.
%jam I
DATE:GA�� c3, ( JOHNSWEETEN, Clerk, By i'/�'LGJ 1 V� 0 Tfv� Deputy Clerk
WARNING (Gov. Code §911.8)
If you wish to file a court action on this matter, you must first petition the appropriate court for an order
relieving you from the provisions of Government Code Section 945.4 (claims presentation requirement). See
Government Code Section 946.6. Such petition must be filed with the court within six (6) months fsrom the date your
application for leave to present a late claim was denied.
You may seek the advise of any attorney of your choice in connection with this matter. If you want to consult an
attorney, you should do so immediately.
IV. FROM: Clerk of the Board TO: (1) County Counsel (2) County Administrator
Attached are copies of the above Application. We notified the applicant of the Board's action on this
Application by mailing a copy of this document, and a memo thereof has been filed and endorsed on the Board's copy
of this Claim in accordance with Section 29703. �]
DATED: ,' ' ��a�,U� JOHNSWEETEN, Clerk, By ���'til IG �2 Deputy Clerk
V. FROM: (1) County Counsel (2) County Administrator TO: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
Received copies of this Application and Board Order.
DATED: County Counsel, By
County Administrator, By
APPLICATION TO FILE LATE CLAIM
•
' � r�oQ�f.�g� � - 7 �
— - - -
- � -�� ��
• —
�j ��A31 � =�71 f�/z`�
V
�o _�
�� -��
- -
=� � ��
. � � .. r .. 1.
2
3
g
7
,o os �
D�i moi' o 12 AJ 13
S
14 CUNViC � / dam
15
16
17 IJ I .TN/J . Sf �� �/✓/ i /�L` lV
18
18
20
17
21
22
sa
25
26 G //
27
r
t
l ..
,i
i�'
1,
,t...
's
i
� �
1
,�
� ..)
„y
i
i
. ,�
�j -
i
'�.
�1 t
.,
5� '
:`
2 �•
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
FILED
V.
Court of appeal-First App.Dirt.
JAMES EARL HINES,
Defendant and Appellant. JUL I.Q 2000
-ROIV...fi. c r..►.i :r, L:ERK
Court of Appeal No. A089184 .•
Contra Costa Co. No. 9602340 BY. oarurt
By the Court:l
By this application, appellant seeks an order directing his release on his
own recognizance pending this appeal of the judgment after resentencing in
People v. Hines, Contra Costa County Superior Court Number 960234-3.
Respondent does not oppose the application. The case, fully briefed, is on this
court's August 2000 calendar.
On May 30, 2000, this court filed its opinion in In re James Earl Hines
(A088737) granting Hines's petition for writ of habeas corpus and vacating the
judgment of conviction in People v. Hines, Contra Costa County Superior Court
Number 902447-2. The conviction in that case was used as a one year
enhancement (Pen. Code§ 667.5,-subd.(b)) in Number 960234-3. According to
the Attorney General, absent that enhancement, appellant is eligible for release on
parole.
Therefore, the application for own recognizance release on appeal is
granted on condition that on or before July 20, 2000,petitioner shall be
transported by the Department of Corrections to appear before the Honorable
Richard Flier, Judge of the Superior Court, Contra Costa County, to be processed
Before Strankman, P.J., Stein, J. and Marchiano, J.
for said release which shall be subject to such terms and conditions as ordered by
Judge Flier. (Pen: Code § § 1272.1 and 1318.) 2
The Clerk of this Court is ordered to file a copy of this order in A088737
and to transmit certified copies of it to the parties,the Department of Corrections,
the Presiding Judge of the Contra Costa Superior Court, and Judge Flier.
Date: JUL 10 2000 STRAM K 5w A'-"\'uq P.J.. P.J.
1,11%D.9ARRO{V.CLERK OFTHE COURT OF
APPEAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA,F1 RST
APPELLATE DISTRICT,DO HEREBY CERTIFY
THAT THE PRECEDING AND ANNEXED ISA
_ TRUE AND CORRF,CT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
ON FILE IN MY OFFICE.
WITNESS MY HAND AND THE SEAL OFTHE COURT
THIS DAY OF �-J 2012`''
C RK
BY EPUTY
2 Appellant, in pro per, has also filed an application for own recognizance release
pending issuance of the remittitur in A088737. We have likewise granted that
application by separate order filed this date:
2
040
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
y
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
i
j FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE �'
i f r 3g
Coin^' ;
'cpeal=Fi-St s. C?ist.
In re"
MiAY 3 0 6000
A088737 �taWj eL'ERK
JAMES EARL HINES, � -
(Contra Costa .,Vurty
Super.. Ct. No. 90-2447-2)
on Habeas Corpus.
The Court:*
B this petition for writ of habeas corpus Pen. Code 1473 1 James Earl Hines
f Y P 1P ( , § ),
seeks to set aside his plea of guilty to two counts of robbery in an inhabited-dwelling
(§§ 211, 212.5 subd. (a)). He contends his plea was induced by misstatements made by
the prosecution concerning the existence of certain physical evidence in the case.
(People v. Wadkins (1965) 63 Cal.2d 110, 114;People v. Goodrum (1991) 228
Ca1.App.3d 397, 400-401; People v. Castaneda(1995) 37 Ca1.App.4th 1612, 1616-1619.)
Specifically, he says that the prosecution falsely claimed that it was in possession of
robbery victim Oliver's purse, which would be offered into evidence along with proof_
that it was recovered from a car occupied by Hines shortly after the robbery.
r
We previously issued our order to show cause made returnable before the Contra
Costa County Superior Court (§ 1508, subd. (b)), having determined that Hines had stated
facts which, if proved, entitled him to relief. (In re Hochberg(1970) 2 Cal.3d 870, 875,
j 1,Re';D•r-ARK611�CL[!21COr Tfff_C()t;;
AP!'i_::?. ;_l'1'ii i;r CAlArC
a;.G1.r•�r�..
I Before Strankman, P.J., Stein, J. and Marchiano, J. Ar1,E'LUTEC;:,, ,,;;;,.c.;i1.�..'..
:�:.
1 Unless otherwise noted, all statutory references are to the Penal Codeov r-i:-Ej.\,,,, �;;;,;_: "'
I ti1'IT,\ESS 111'1::;\:1;:;:; -- • ,- �
BI'—
i
fn. 4.)2 After an evidentiary hearing, the superior court denied relief. This new petition
followed. (§ 1475.) We will grant the writ.
I. Background
Hines entered the challenged plea on December 26, 1990.3 The charged robberies
of victims Hoyt Little and Joanne Oliver occurred on October 3, 1988, in Little's home in
Rodeo. Two robbers, one of them armed with a knife and a gun and later identified as
Hines, took television sets; cash and Oliver's purse. Hines was not arrested on the
charges until March 3, 1990.
Hines represented himself at his jury trial which commenced December 17, 1990.
Subsequently, the court granted his motion for advisory counsel. The attorney was later
allowed to serve as cocounsel.
Victim Little was 74 years old at the time of trial and in poor health. He testified
via videotaped deposition. He was not sure that Hines was the robber. Shortly after the
crime, however, Little identified Hines from a photo lineup. Victim Oliver could not
identify Hines from the photo lineup, but did identify him at trial. She testified on
December 24, 1990, following.her arrest on December 20 on'a bench warrant issued
when she failed to appear in response to a trial subpoena. She explained that her failure
to appear was because of her doubts about whether Hines was the robber. She testified
that the robbers had taken her"white purse . . . with a bunch of papers in it," including
her section 8 papers,4 some papers.from the county and some pictures of her son.
2 We take judicial notice of all records and filings in that petition (No. A084852).
(Evid.Code, §§ 452, subd. (d), 459.)
3 We�affirmed the convictions in an opinion filed February 13, 1992 (No:`
A052765),and we take judicial notice of all records and filings in that case. (Evid.Code,
§§ 452, subd. (d), 459). This record was likewise before the superior court on our order
to show cause:
4 "Section 8" refers to a federal housing subsidy program.
2
The morning of December 24, after cross-examination of Oliver, the prosecutor,
David G. Brown, announced that certain police reports were being photocopied and
would shortly be given to the defense. The defense.asked whether the police reports—in
Prosecutor Brown's good faith judgment—would have any bearing on cross-examination
of Oliver or on the identification issues. Prosecutor Brown answered "No."
After a short recess, Prosecutor Brown handed defense cocounsel a copy of a
report from the Twin Cities Police Department. (Larkspur and Corte Madera.) The
prosecutor explained that-Hines and another man were arrested in the early morning
hours of October 4, 1988 (within hours of the Little/Oliver robbery) in an allegedly stolen
car. Significantly, the prosecutor made no mention of Oliver's purse, but said that a
hypodermic needle, drugs and three color television sets were found in the car. The
reports did not mention a purse. The prosecutor first learned of the reports Friday night,
December 21, and saw them on Saturday, December 22.
On December 26, 1990, during a hearing outside the presence of the jury, the
defense argued for exclusion of evidence from the Twin Cities arrest because of the
prosecution's failure to earlier disclose the information. In addition, the defense moved
to suppress the evidence pursuant to section 1538.5.
During the hearing, Prosecutor Brown made a number of representations to the
court and defense. On Friday evening he and an investigator updated Hines's rap sheet.
For the first time, they discovered the October 4, 1988, arrest and sent a fax to-the Twin -
Cities Police Department. On Saturday morning he received a call from his investigator
that the return fax had come.in. He went to his.office in the afternoon to read the reports.
He alerted the defense to the reports on Monday morning, December 24, and provided
copies later in the day.
Explaining the anticipated testimony of Twin Cities Police Sergeant Michael
McDuffee and Officer Edward Olson, the prosecutor declared that"a purse," connected
with victim Oliver, was among the items seized from the stolen car. Brown did not show
3
the physical evidence to the court and the defense. Instead, he stated that the officers.
would testify "This is.the purse that was found in the car and inside the purse is contained
the documents and items contained therein."..The prosecutor also explained that the
television-sets had been destroyed. .
The court denied the defense motion to exclude the testimony of McDuffee and
Olson, and a motion for a mistrial. During further discussion of search and seizure
issues, the prosecutor again made reference to the recovery of the purse from the car.
While there was.some question about whether the television sets and gun matched those
involved in the robberies, Oliver's purse linked the two incidents. Shortly thereafter,
Hines pled guilty.
In February of 1991, a hearing was held on Hines's motion to withdraw his guilty
plea. He asserted several grounds, including those alleged here. His motion was denied
without an evidentiary hearing. As we have noted, we affirmed the convictions on
appeal. In conjunction with that appeal and many times and in many forums over the
next several years, Hines.persisted.in.his complaint that the-Twin Cities police did not
recover.Oliver.'s-purse on.October 4, 1988, and.that he would.not have entered.a plea of.
guilty absent the Contra Costa prosecution's misstatements concerning the purse.6 His
challenges failed:
In January of.1998, Hines -- who had served his time -- was again on trial in
Contra Costa Superior Court, this time for possession of cocaine, heroin (Health & Saf.
Code, § 11350) and a syringe. (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 4149.) The Little and Oliver
robberies were charged as a prior strike (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)).
s The transcript makes reference to a"Mr. Beal," spelled phonetically.. It is
undisputed; however,-that McDuffee and Olson were the officers called to testify.
6. We take judicial notice (Evid. Code, §§ 452, subd.'(d), 459)-of the following
records,:which"include those in the People's request for judicial notice: A052783,
A056676, A059215, A059997, A061483, A064264, A087736 and No. C-92-1906 filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. (One of the
records listed in the People's request, A088973, does not concern Hines.)
4
In the course of his motion to strike this prior, Hines was, for the first time, allowed to
call Sergeant McDuffee to the stand.
McDuffee testified that he did not recover Oliver's purse from the car at the time
of Hines's arrest on October 4, 1988. To his knowledge no one found such a purse, or
any purse. When he and Olson were subpoenaed to testify in December of 1990 at
Hines's Contra Costa County trial, they took the recovered gun, but they did not take
Oliver's purse because they did not have it. The purse was not mentioned in their reports,
evidence tags or booking documents. If he had found a purse, it would have been
discussed in his reports. Around the time of the Twin Cities arrest, McDuffee and Olson
sent out a Teletype concerning the items recovered from the car. There was nothing in
the Teletype about Oliver's purse, because no purse was recovered. To his knowledge
Olson never found a purse and did not take one to court.
The court struck the 1990 robbery convictions for purposes of the three strikes
law.7 It did not otherwise rule on their validity.
Armed with the transcript of McDuffee's testimony, Hines filed a new petition in
this court:`After the evidentiary hearing on our order to show cause, the superior court
"having heard all the testimony, examined the exhibits, and all submitted documentation
as well as reviewing all of the transcripts, and having considered the credibility of all the
witnesses," found that good cause had not been shown and denied the petition.
This petition followed.
7 Hines appealed the conviction (No. A081286), but later abandoned the appeal.
We take judicial notice of the records and filings in A081286. Subsequently; Hines filed
a habeas corpus petition alleging that the trial court had imposed a one-year prior prison
term enhancement for a 1977 Solano County conviction as to which the jury made no
finding. We issued an order to show cause returnable to the trial court, and Hines was
resentenced.: On resentencing, the trial court used the 1990 robberies to impose a one- .
year prior prison term enhancement. Hines again appealed. That appeal, A089184, is-"
pending:- We take judicial notice of the records and filings in that case:. (Evid. Code,
§§ 452, subd. (d), 459.)
5
II. The People's Procedural Objections
The People contend that the petition should be denied as repetitious (In re Clark
(1993) 5 Ca1.4th 750, 775-777), and that Hines has not demonstrated diligence in
investigatingand presenting the factual.and:legal bases for the relief he seeks. (In re
Robbins (1998) 18 Cal.4th 770, 808.)_ The record is otherwise. Hines immediately
moved to withdraw his guilty plea, but was not allowed to call the Twin Cities.police
officers to testify.: Over the next seven years he filed civil complaints as well as habeas .
corpus petitions in the superior court, here and in federal court.$ The federal habeas
corpus petition was resolved on summary judgment, against petitioner. The deputy
attorney general's,affidavit submitted at the proceeding stated that_McDuffee had no
recollection of the events at issue. After McDuffee's testimony in January of 1998, Hines
promptly renewed his request for relief. He has sufficiently demonstrated diligence in
pursuing his claim. (In re Clark, supra, at p. 775.)
On the premise that Hines is not presently in custody on his 1990 plea, the.People .
also argue that his proper remedy is by way of petition for writ of error coram nobis, not
habeas corpus. Hines's current sentence, however, includes a one-year enhancement for.
these offenses. (§ 667.5, subd. (b).)9 Moreover, habeas corpus:may be prosecuted based
upon "[fJalse physical evidence, believed by a person to be factual, probative, or material
on the issue of guilt, which was known by_the person at.the time of entering.a plea of
guilty, which was a material factor directly related to the plea of guilty by the person."
(§ 1473, subd. (b)(2).)10
8 See footnote 6.-
9 See footnote 7.
to. In any case, in our view under the unique circumstances of this case,_Hines has
met the requirements for a writ of error coram nobis. It has.long been"_`well settled in,
this state that whereon account of.duress;fraud, or other factoverreaching the.free will
and judgment of a defendant he is deprived of the right of a trial on the merits, the'court.
in which he was sentenced may after judgment and after the time for appeal has passed, if
a properly supported motion is seasonably made, grant him the privilege of withdrawing
6
III. Standard of Review
Hines is required to prove the allegations of his petition by a preponderance of
substantial, credible evidence. (In re Hitchings (1993) 6 Cal.4th 97, 109; In re Cudio
(1999) 20 Cal.4th 673, 687; In re visciotti(1996) 14 Ca1.4th 325,.351.) On this renewed
petition following our order to show cause to the superior court, we make our
"independent examination and appraisal of the evidence." (In re Hochberg; supra, 2
Cal.3d 870, 873-874, fn. 2.) We are not bound by the superior court's conclusions of law
or its resolution of mixed questions of law and fact. (In re Gay(1998) 19 CalAth 771,
791; People v. Ledesma (1987) 43 Cal.3d 171, 219; In re Hitchings,.supra, at pp. 109-
114.) We are also not bound by its factual findings, although we give them great weight
if they are supported by ample, credible evidence. (In re Hitchings, supra, at p. 109; see,
e.g., In re Gay, supra, at p. 822-'In re Brown (1998) 17 Ca1.4th 873; 884-886.) But "we
may reach a different conclusion on an independent examination of the evidence . . . even
where the evidence-is conflicting." (In re Hitchings, supra, at p. 109.)
IV. The Record
Our independent review establishes the following.
The testimony of Twin Cities Police Sergeant Michael McDuffee did not vary.
from his testimony in 1998 at Hines's motion to strike. He did not recover a purse from
the car on October 4, 1988. He had no reason to believe anyone else recovered a purse. -
No pursewas'mentioned in any police reports; evidence tags,'or booking logs of the
incident, except on one undated, unsigned note on a card stating that an unidentified
person was looking for a purse. There was a phone number on the note--"703-2838"--
identified by Deputy Attorney General Morris Beatus as his 1993 number. The writing
his plea of guilty and of reassuming the situation occupied by him before a plea of any
kind was entered.' [A]ny'other course would probably constitute a denial of due
process:" (People v. Wadkins, supra, 63 Cal.2d 110;114; People v. Goodrum, supra, 228
Cal.App.3d 397, 400-401; People v. Castaneda,supra, 37 Cal.App.4th 1612, 1616-
1619.)
7
a
appeared to be that of evidence supervisor Sharon Olson. The note was overlaid on the
initial report.
McDuffee and Edward Olson drove together to Contra Costa Superior Court.
McDuffee did not take a purse; he did not see Olson take a purse. If a purse had been
recovered on October 4, 1988, with identification inside, the victim would have been
promptly contacted and the information would have been included in the Teletype
concerning the incident.. (Evid. Code, § 664.) McDuffee did not recall speaking with the
Attorney General's office in 1993 (during proceedings on Hines's petition in federal
court), but may have done so. Consistent with his affidavit filed in conjunction with
Hines's 1993 federal habeas corpus proceeding, Deputy Attorney General Morris Beatus
stated that McDuffee had "no independent recollection of the matter."
Former Twin Cities Police Officer Edward Olson did not testify; however his
statement to Hines's investigator was admitted into evidence without objection. Olson
stated that he had no independent recollection of the events, and could only read his
reports. (Evid. Code. § .1237.) The reports were in evidence; they made no mention of a
purse.
James Palmer, retired investigator for the Contra Costa District Attorney's office
testified that during Hines's trial, around Christmas Eve, he went to the Twin Cities
Police Department to see the evidence seized on October 4, 1988, and spoke with an.
Officer Olson and a male desk sergeant. According to McDuffee, a Sharon Olson was .
assigned to the evidence desk, but Palmer said he saw and spoke with a man: Palmer did.. .
not, however, clearly identify this person as Edward Olson, the officer who accompanied
McDuffee to court. Palmer saw a card listing the purse as evidence retrieved in.the.
October 4, 1988, incident. The records of the Twin Cities Police Department reveal no
such card and no mention of a purse. Palmer said he asked to see the purse and saw it at
that time.
According to Palmer, on December 26, 1990, McDuffee and Edward Olson came -
to Contra Costa for Hines's trial:� They brought Oliver's purse.- Contrary to Prosecutor
Brown's statements at trial that the television sets had been destroyed, Palmer testified
8
that McDuffee and Olson brought the sets with them, along with other evidence listed in
the crime report. He notified Prosecutor Brown. When McDuffee and Olson left that
day, Palmer signed their form and kept the purse. The Twin Cities Police Department
has no record of such a form. Palmer said Oliver's purse had an evidence tag attached.
Brown told him to keep the purse until the time for appeal had run.
Palmer said that the purse he saw at the Twin Cities Police Department was the
same purse McDuffee and Olson brought to court on December 26, 1990, with the same x
papers and identification. Palmer said the purse contained section 8 papers, a letter and a
Christmas or birthday card. Contrary to victim Oliver's trial description of the bag stolen
from her (a white purse), Palmer described "a clam purse that opened from the top center,
kind of a black and brown plaid with black leather or vinyl trim along each left and right
side and black handle."
Palmer's affidavit submitted in 1993 in conjunction with Hines's federal habeas
corpus petition was entered into evidence. In-it he explained that he had locked the purse
in his own evidence locker after the trial, where it remained until he retired. He
understood that it was nowhere to be found.
Prosecutor Brown testified as well. He had little recollection of his.statements at
trial concerning the purse. He remembered seeing the purse and Oliver's section 8 papers
in it. He did not remember whether McDuffee and Olson or Palmer brought the purse to.
the district attorney's office, but he saw it there before his statements in court on
December 26; 1990. He thought he spoke with McDuffee and Olson "briefly, letting
them know there was going to be a hearing and where the hearing was to be held, a very
brief contact" before'his December 26, 1990, statements.
The last time Prosecutor Brown saw the purse was in the district attorney's
investigator's office. He recalled Palmer showing him a booking tag on the purse. He .
remembered Palmer saying that he went to Twin Cities where he found booking
information and the purse. Brown did not recall stating at trial that he personally called
Twin Cities, and he did not know-if he made such a call. Contradicting Palmer, Brown..
9
did not tell him to keep the purse until after the appeal, but they discussed whether to
return Ms. Oliver's papers to her.
Significantly, victim Oliver was subject to recall at trial. Yet she was never asked
to identify the allegedly recovered purse, nor was any attempt made to return it or its
contents to her.il
Hines's trial attorney, David A. Brown, also testified. While all of the information
from the October 4 arrest, and the timing of it, influenced Hines, the prosecution's
statement concerning the purse with Oliver's identification in it was "the most critical
element" in his advice to Hines to plead guilty..
V. Conclusion and Disposition
In light of the entire record before us, we conclude that Hines sustained his
burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence concerning prosecution
misstatements about Oliver's purse. Palmer described a purse different than that stolen
from victim Oliver. Though available, victim Oliver was never asked about the purse,
nor was there any effort by Palmer or Prosecutor Brown to return it to her. Palmer and
Brown contradicted one another, and no evidence corroborated their versions of what
transpired. The testimony of each is in conflict with Brown's statements to the court on
December 26, 1990. In contrast, McDuffee's testimony, the records of the Twin Cities
Police Department, including evidence tags and booking sheets, and Hines's
investigator's interview with Olson are consistent: no purse was recovered by Twin
Cities Police personnel; no Teletype issued about such a purse; no purse was brought fo
Contra Costa Superior Court by McDuffee and Olson.
ii Hines attempted to establish that Oliver had not received a section 8 certificate at
the time of the robbery. His evidence was excluded for failure to establish an adequate
evidentiary foundation. He has asked this Court to take judicial notice of the business
records, which he contends should have been entered into evidence. We deny the
request.
10
The evidence is undisputed that the prosecution's plan to introduce a purse in
evidence, along with related testimony, was the critical impetus to Hines's decision to
plead guilty.12
The petition for writ of habeas corpus is granted. The judgment of conviction in
Contra Costa County Superior Court No. 902447-2 is vacated, and petitioner is remanded
to that court. Upon finality of this decision, the clerk of this court is directed to remit a
certified copy of this opinion to the superior court for filing. The Attorney General shall
serve a copy thereof on the District Attorney of Contra Costa County (§ 1382, subd.
,_... (all21)_a_n�i f le prof thereof in this Court.
l
' APi E..I,:........
THAT:-lir
. TRUT AND C:;... =T i_::)R:(::N'15L
0\VOL:I\1i11,i
�I WITi;ESS AiV I:,•::::..`:.. 2:%.0 0F'I I E Ci:;;'•T
THIS VA,UF--- ---20�
D{�► �.� R LVJ CI.I:RK
1 y n t.1 1)11'UTY
BY
We are m ndfi.:l-ofthe general.rule that,a:defendant moving to withdraw a guilty. . .:.
plea(§ 10 18) on the ground of mistake, inadvertence-, ignorance or some other-factor
overcoming the exercise of free judgment, must establish good cause by clear and
1 convincing evidence. (People v. Cruz (1974) 12 Ca1.3d 562, 566; People v. Castaneda,
' supra, 37 Cal.App.4th 1612 1617• People v. Brotherton 1966 239 Cal.A 2d 195
P ( ) PP•
200.) The trial court's decision on such a motion lies within its sound discretion. "[T]he
test of abuse in such circumstances is whether after consideration of all relevant factors.
there was good cause shown.for granting the motion and whether justice would be
promoted thereby." (People v. Superior Court (Giron) 11 Cal.3d 793, 798.) These same
rules have been applied to a post-conviction motion to vacate a judgment. (Castaneda,
supra, atp. 1617.) Applying this standard, it is apparent that given the uncontradicted
evidence that the alleged existence of the purse prompted Hines's guilty plea, good cause
for allowing withdrawal of the plea is established and justice will be promoted thereby.
11
y
Z%
rrrr
IS
LAJ {� i
f,
i
1
J
t�
f
1
ti
i
t
�
CLAIM
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
BOARD ACTION: Oct 23, 2001
Claim Against the County, or District Governed by )
the Board of Supervisors, Routing Endorsements, ) NOTICE TO CLAIMANT
and Board Action. All Section references are to ) The copy of this document mailed to you is your
California Government Codes. ) notice of the action taken on your claim by the
Board of Supervisors. (Paragraph IV below), given
P ant to Government Code Section 913 and
5.4. lnjo:e-a11 "Wa' ings".
AMOUNT: $2,053.44 0 C T 12 2001 OCT 15 2001
1
COUNTY COUNSEL 33
CLAIMANT: Leonard Filippo MARTINEZ CALIF. CLERK BOARD OF SUPEW""'ai i
CONTRA COSTA Cu.
ATTORNEY: None DATE RECEIVED: October 9, 2001
ADDRESS: 26 Royal Glen Ct. BY DELIVERY TO CLERK ON: October 9, 2001
Walnut Creek, CA 94595
BY MAIL POSTMARKED: October 5, 2001
I. FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors TO: County Counsel
Attached is a copy of the above-noted claim.
JOHN SWEE r
Dated: October 10, 2001 By: Deputy
II. FROM-- County Counsel TO: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
(.
A;hisaim complies substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2.
( ) This Claim FAILS to comply substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2, and we are so notifying claimant. The
Board cannot act for 15 days (Section 910.8).
( ) Claim is not timely filed. The Clerk should return claim on ground that it was filed late and send warning of
claimant's right to apply for leave to present a late claim (Section 911.3).
( ) Other:
Dated: By: Deputy County Counsel
III. FROM: Clerk of the Board TO: County Counsel (1) County Administrator(2)
( ) Claim was returned as untimely with notice to claimant (Section 911.3).
IV. BOARD ORDER: By unanimous vote of the Supervisors present:
This Claim is rejected in full.
( ) Other:
I certify that this is a true and correct copy of the Board's Order entered in its minutes for this date.
Dated: O&WL JOHN SWEETEN, CLERK, By ,�i%� Deputy Clerk
WARNING (Gov. code section 913)
Subject to certain exceptions, you have only six (6) months from the date this notice was personally served or deposited
in the mail to file a court action on this claim. See Government Code Section 945.6. You may seek the advice of an
attorney of your choice in connection with this matter. If you want to consult an attorney, you should do so
immediately. *For Additional Warning See Reverse Side of This Notice.
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING
I declare under penalty of perjury that I am now, and at all times herein mentioned, have been a citizen of the United
States, over age 18; and that today I deposited in the United States Postal Service in Martinez, California, postage fully
prepaid a certified copy of this Board Order and Notice to Claimant, addressed to the claimant as shown above.
� r�� n n
Dated: Q�/a 01 JOHN SWEETEN, CLERK By ���� Deputy Clerk
This warning does not apply to claims which are not
subject to the California Tort.Claims Act such as actions
in inverse condemnation, actions for specific relief such
as mandamus or injunction, or Federal Civil Rights
claims. The above list is not exhaustive and legal
consultation is essential to understand all the separate
limitations periods that may apply. The limitations period
within which suit must be filed may be shorter or longer
depending on the nature of the claim. Consult the specific
statutes and cases applicable to your particular claim.
The County of Contra Costa does not waive any of its
rights under California Tort Claims Act nor does it waive
rights under the statutes of limitations applicable to
actions not subject to the California Tort Claims Act.
Claim to: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
INSTRUCTIONS TO CLAIMANT
A. Claims relating to causes of action for death or for injury to person or to personal property or growing crops
and which accrue on or before December 31, 1987, must be presented not later than the 100`h day after the
accrual of the cause of'action. Claims relating to causes of action for death or for injury to person or to
personal property ors owing crops"-and which accrue on or after January 1, 1988. must be presented not later
than siz months after the accrual of the cause of action. Claims relating to any other cause of action must be
presented not later than one year after the accrual of the cause of action. (Govt. Code §911.2. )
B. Claims must be filed with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at its office in Room 106. County_
Administration Building,651 Pine Street.Martinez, CA 94-4-43.
C. If Claim is against a district governed by the Board of Supenzsors, rather than the County. the name of the
District should be filled in.
D. If the claim is against more than one public entity.separate claims must be filed against each public entit,%
E. Fraud. See penalty for fraudulent claims. Penal Code Sec. 72 at the end of this form.
R.E. Claim by. ) Reserved for Clerk's Filing Stamp
Lao,,Ap o ric.i ppo )
. RECEIVER
Against the County of Contra Costa
or
OCT 9- 2001
District) �TOWSUPER I S
MMA LQOSR
(Fill in Name)
The undersigned claimant hereby makes claim against the County of Contra Costa or the above named
District in the sum of S 2.053 .14 and in support of this claim represents as follows:
1. When did the damage or injury occur" (Give exact Date and Hour)
To Dc..TdSevt 2� 1 f'_ �A_v�
-- -- - ---- - - ------ ---------------------------------------
2. Where did the damage or injury occur" (Include City and Counn•)
---aRa�rt�s_51! ETf_11�1�4c.,-a u7_ C2e�1� -------------------------------- ---------
3. HoW.did the damage or injury occur" (Give fall details: use extra paper if required j
Cou#-+T7 wo 2 WErLI_ M, FI LL11- C-XA L5*i..t fi:..OA0 LpJ►t4 C-A-AGIL$EAt_g ,
Wr= DrM V,:- -tJrt..ouiH IJE5tr�ER, wHr(-IH CoVe/LEdTHE 5oT7o,,., )JALF OF /v.y
HA2,
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. What particular act or omission on the part of county or district officers, sen•ants, or'emplovees caused the
injury or.damage" BAA;ri;cj 17F�� S lSNS 0MTR-A FFI4L t0k'TApL-WA-5 S,/W PQ%Lr
-WHILE T'H F Sr qL r.,fL W&S Sou- w a.<r. A 63umTy W olaw.A(. CT k yv\)'TYLI C-0
-TO C-L& " T H 1"zr S MPA .MvL O Fr= O F. NN, Cf�l2. 3 T1 ?tt Fy -PYL.a Oki vT Fi rz- US I•z(�
oto TXtra PLNI;l*c. SmMr 6-4 Iv�4 C� Ii2t Uk4tra,�.7U"'ITL 1 bAMP, �,b-t 1-i
aug put, wamuosudmr q:)ns
qloq .iq 10 `( 0001()IS) slrllop pursnogl vai '.uipaaosa lou jo aug r .iq °uosud ams aql ur luamuosudmr .tq 10 -aug
Par luamuosudmr q�ns gjoq .iq 10 i( 000-IS ) slt,llop pursnogj auo'nurpaazza loa jo aug t, .iq Arae auo arqj ajoui
jou jo pouad r Joj grf .ijunoJ aqj ui luamuosudmi .iq lagi a algvgsiund sl `2ulju.a 10 '1aq:)nOA lunoon `lliq •uirt,lo
jualnpnt,lj 10 aslrj .iur "aurnua;j! aiurs aqj .ird 10 .%,ollr of pazLimpne 'laaWo 10 plroq laulsip 10 .ilca Sjunoa :int,
o110 Haag;o 10 plroq ams .tur of juawerd 10;10 aour,"ollr fol sluasald �pnmijap of lualur qvA,°oq.,A uoslad .uaA3„
:sap�%old apo' lruad aqj jo aouaaS
10 N,
n�
Z L7's�6�SZb o� auugdalaj ___._ — - - •ok auogdalal
( ssa-1ppy )
(alnjru„is 5•1ur.m rlJ )
.iaulouy jo'ssa.ippv pur aum-N!
V y
q sig uo uoslad aruos .iq to (.iaulouF) :OL SaDflo11i Q43S
luecutr:Iz)ag1:+q'pamLis aq jsnui mrrl:)aql,, f
sapr.O id -•016 -aac ape] •.BOO
�R M X X X X X ac � X �f X•�F � :� ,� x X x � x X X x X � X � � � X X X X x a: �,c X X X i� +F �F �F X %f � x � is �F x i� .M
1.IoKt 1ti3.LI 3.LVG
:.ilnfui Jo ivaptoar sigl jo junoo3r uo aprm no; salnupuadza aql lst-1 6
----------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------
sjm!dsoq pur simop •sassauir.a jo sassalppr pur ,murk •g
--- ---------- ------- --- ---- ------- ----------------------------------------=----------
(•aonwnp io.unfu►anuaadso.id.iun jo mnowc pamupsa ain apnlanl 1 -palndmoJ janomt, pamn'Ia aAO# aql sr.11 .aOg
-- --- ---------- .. F----.--
InGOq �.LOa l 1=�1'�tl�Z��. �L1`�^"�1L:�',Oc�. �"QS1C�•lA�I. .S''U t�S. �t1.S"�'Id Q.L �`�k/''IN��Q
- a"oniuep 01nn
toj sMnuigsa Oas7 1pruv •paum.-p saonutrp so saianfui jo iva3xa im aero) Zpallnsa.r mrelo noe op saunfur 10 saD,rffrp irq& .9
�elnfut Jo aoEmt,p agi�n�snra saaeoldma Jo`slue•L1as�s1a��o laujsip 10 .iiunoa jo samt,u aqi a1r jt,q� •S
CLASSIC AUTO BODY
1401 AUTO CENTER DRIVE
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596
PHONE: (925) 938-3131 FAX: ( 925) 938-0718
CD LOG NO 1629-1 DATE 10/04/01
SHOP: CLASSIC AUTO BODY INSP DATE: 10/04/01
ADDRESS: 1401 AUTOCENTER DRIVE PHONE 1 : (925) 938-3131
CITY STATE: WALNUT CREEK, CA
ZIP: 94596-
OWNER: FILIPPO, LEN HOME PHONE: (925) 935-2721
ADDRESS: 26 ROYAL GLENN CT.
CITY STATE: WC, CA
ZIP: 94595-
LIC# : 4NDC059 STATE: CA VIN: 1J4G248SXYC357244
BODY COLOR: MILEAGE:
CONDITION: ACCTNG CTL# :
*=USER-ENTERED VALUE E=NEW PART EC=ECONOMY PART
EU=SALVAGE PART EP=SEE PX REPORT ET=LABOR PARTIAL REPLACE
IT=LABOR PARTIAL REPAIR I=REPAIR/ALIGN/SUBLET L=REFINISH
N=ADDNL LABOR OPERATION P=CHECK TE=PART/PARTIAL REPLACE
AA=APPEARANCE ALLOWANCE RP=RELATED PRIOR DAMAGE UP=UNRELATED PRIOR DAMAGE
RI=R&I ASSEMBLY
2000 JEEP GRAND CHEROKEE LAREDO 4DR WAGON J7313B/B OPTNS E/24THV
OPTIONS: TWO-STAGE - EXTERIOR SURFACES TWO-STAGE - INTERIOR SURFACES
KEYLESS ENTRY SYSTEM PRIVACY GLASS
OVERHEAD CONSOLE
OP GDE MC DESCRIPTION MFG. PART NO. PRICE AJ% HOURS R
-- --- -- ------------ ------------ ----- --- ----- -
E 0008 01 COVER, FRONT BUMPER 5EU79VF7 422 . 00 2 . 2 1
E 0079 01 CLADDING, FRONT FENDER L/R 5FR17VF7 16.25 0. 4 1
E 0080 01 CLADDING, FRONT FENDER R/R 5FR16VF7 16.25 . 0. 4 1
E 0272 01 MLDG,ROCKER PANEL LT 5EY65VF7 67 . 70 0. 4 1
E 0273 01 MLDG, ROCKER PANEL RT 5EY64VF7 67 . 70 0 . 4 1
E 0362 01 CLADDING, FRONT DOOR LT 5FR21VF7AB 41 . 75 0 . 6 1
E 0363 01 CLADDING, FRONT DOOR RT 5FR20VF7AB 41 .75 0. 6 1
E 0452 01 CLADDING,REAR . DOOR LT 5EY75VF7AB 46. 75 0. 6 1
E 0453 01 'CLADDING, REAR DOOR RT 5EY74VF7AB 46. 75 0 . 6 1
E 0173 01 CLADDING,QUARTER PANEL LT 5EY79XS9 9. 35 . 0 . 2 1
E 0174 01 CLADDING,QUARTER PANEL RT 5EY7.8VF7 9.35 0.2 1
E 0455 01 COVER,REAR BUMPER 5EU81VF7 422. 00 0. 9 1
E 0454 PAD, REAR BUMPER STEP 5015524AA 27 . 00 1 . 1 1
E 0542 HOOK, REAR BUMPER TOW LT 52059013 79. 20 0. 2 1
E 0543 HOOK, REAR BUMPER TOW RT 52059012 79.20 0. 2 1
15 ITEMS
Ono V
. 04 O .
17 1_ .
200,0 JEEP GRAND CHEROKEE LAREDO 4DR WAGON
CD LOG NO ,1629-1
MC MESSAGE (S)
01 CALL DEALER FOR EXACT PART NUMBER / PRICE
FINAL CALCULATIONS & ENTRIES
GROSS PARTS 1, 393 . 00
PARTS TOTAL 1, 393. 00
TAX ON PARTS & MATERIAL @ 8 . 000% 111. 44
LABOR RATE REPLACE HRS REPAIR HRS
1-SHEET METAL 61 . 00 9. 0 549. 00
2-MECH/ELEC 78 . 00
3-FRAME 62. 00
4-REFINISH 61 . 00
5-PAINT MATERIAL 26. 00
LABOR TOTAL 549. 00
TAX ON LABOR @ 0. 000%
SUBLET REPAIRS
TOWING
STORAGE
GROSS TOTAL 2, 053 . 44
NET TOTAL. 2, 053. 44
ADP SHOPLINK UB275 ES CD LOG 1629-1 DATE 10/04/01 05: 06: 50PM R6. 1 CD 09/01
PXN:N/00/00/00/00 CUM: /// HOST LOG
COPYRIGHT 1999, AUTOMATIC DATA PROCESSING, INC.
TEST
--------------------------------------------------
1
• ... O... . . .. • ..t . .A ' .. .. ..
10/04/2001 at 05 :33 PM Job Number:
42658
MIKE ROSE'S AUTO BODY OF WC, INC.
License #:BAR AF195098 Federal ID #:680291453
WHERE QUALITY COUNTS
2288 NORTH MAIN STREET
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596
(925) 937-4776
PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE
Written by: VINCENT VEGA #
Adjuster:
Insured: LEW FILIPO Claim #
Owner: LEW FILIPO Policy #
Address: 26 royal glenn ct Deductible:
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94595 Date of Loss:
Day: (925) 935-2721 Type of Loss:
Evening: (510) 412-5720 Point of Impact: 12. Front
Inspect MIKE ROSE'S AUTO BODY OF WC, INC Business: (925) 937-4776
Location: 2288 NORTH MAIN STREET
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596
Insurance
Company: Days to Repair
2000 JEEP GRAND CHEROKEE 4X2 LAREDO 6-4 .OL-FI 4D UTV CHAMPAGNE Int:
VIN: 1J4G248SXYC357244 Lic: CA Prod Date: 02/2000 Odometer: 15786
Air Conditioning Rear Defogger Tilt Wheel
Cruise Control Intermittent Wipers Theft Deterrent/Alarm
Rear Wiper Tinted Glass Dual Mirrors
Roof Console Luggage/Roof Rack Clear Coat Paint
Metallic Paint Power Steering Power Brakes
Power Windows Power Locks Power Mirrors
Anti-Lock Brakes (4) Driver Airbag Passenger Airbag
4 Wheel Disc Brakes Cloth Seats Bucket Seats
Automatic Transmission Aluminum Wheels
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NO. OP. DESCRIPTION QTY EXT. PRICE LABOR PAINT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 FRONT BUMPER
2 O/H bumper assy 0 0.00 1.7 0.0
3 Repl Bumper cover w/o fog lamps dar 1 444 .00 Incl. 2 .8
4 Add for Clear Coat 0 0.00 0.0 1. 1
5 FENDER
6 Repl RT Lower cladding Laredo prime 1 53 . 95 0.2 0.4
7 Repl .LT Lower cladding Laredo prime 1 53 .95 0.2 0.4
8 Repl RT Splash shield 1 45.00 0.3 0.0
9 Repl LT Splash shield 1 45.00 0.3 0.0
10 PILLARS, ROCKER & FLOOR
11 Repl RT Rocker molding wide gray 1 67.70 0.3 0.0
12 Repl LT Rocker molding wide gray 1 67.70 0.3 0.0
13 FRONT DOOR
1
10/04/2001 at 05 :33 PM Job Number:
42658
PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE
2000 JEEP GRAND CHEROKEE 4X2 LAREDO 6-4.OL-FI 4D UTV CHAMPAGNE Int:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NO. OP. DESCRIPTION QTY EXT. PRICE LABOR PAINT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14 Repl RT Lower cladding Laredo gray 1 41.75 0.4 1.0
15 REAR DOOR
16 Repl LT Lower cladding Laredo gray 1 46.75 0.4 0.8
17 REAR BUMPER
18 O/H bumper assy 0 0. 00 2 .0 0.0
19 Repl Bumper cover Laredo w/o hitch 1 405. 00 Incl. 3 .2
20 Add for Clear Coat 0 0.00 0.0 1.3
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotals =_> 1270.80 6.1 11.0
Parts 1270 .80
Body Labor 6.1 hrs @ $ 62 .00/hr 378 .20
Paint Labor 11.0 hrs @ $ 62.00/hr 682 .00
Paint Supplies 11.0 hrs @ $ 26.00/hr . 286.00
----------------------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL $ 2617.00
Sales Tax $ 1556.80 @ 8.0000% 124 .54
----------------------------------------------------
GRAND TOTAL $ 2741.54
ADJUSTMENTS:
Deductible 0.00
----------------------------------------------------
CUSTOMER PAY $ 0 .00
INSURANCE PAY $ 2741.54
THIS IS A PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE, ADDITIONAL CHANGES TO THE ESTIMATE MAY BE
REQUIRED FOR THE ACTUAL REPAIR.
Estimate based on MOTOR CRASH ESTIMATING GUIDE. Unless otherwise noted all items are derived from
the Guide DR3WA99 Database Date 8/2001 and the parts selected are OEM-parts manufactured by the
vehicles Original Equipment Manufacturer. Asterisk (*) or Double Asterisk (**) indicates that the
parts and/or labor information provided by MOTOR may have been modified or may have come from an
alternate data source. Non-Original Equipment Manufacturer aftermarket parts are described as AM
or Qual Repl Parts. Used parts are described as LKQ, Qual Recy Parts, RCY, or USED. Reconditioned
parts are described as Recon. Recored parts are described as Recore. NAGS Part Numbers and Prices
are provided from National Auto Glass Specifications, Inc. Pound sign (#) items indicate manual
entries.
Pathways - A product of CCC Information Services Inc.
2