Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Lozano v. On Habeas Corpus

United States District Court, C.D. California

November 9, 2017

John Vincent Lozano
v.
On Habeas Corpus

          Present: The Honorable KENLY KIYA KATO, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

          CIVIL MINUTES-GENERAL

         I.

         INTRODUCTION

         On September 26, 2017, Petitioner John Vincent Lozano (“Petitioner”), an inmate at Valley State Prison, proceeding pro se, constructively filed[1] a Petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (“Petition”) with no respondent named. See ECF Docket No. (“Dkt.”) 1, Petition. Petitioner challenges his 2015 convictions in the Los Angeles County Superior Court for sodomy by force and sodomy by anesthesia. Id. at 2. The Petition sets forth ten grounds for habeas relief:

(1) Ground One: Ineffective assistance of appellate counsel “for Failing to Investigate and Raise Five Crucial additional Grounds of Ineffective Assistance of Trial Counsel, and also Counsel on Appeal Failed to present Grounds of Prosecutorial Misconduct which denied Petitioner a Fair Trial. Appellate Counsel also Failed to raise Ground of Abuse of Trial Courts discretion in Denying proffer”;
(2) Ground Two: Ineffective assistance of trial counsel “for failing to investigate crucial issues of victims Mental history and victims criminal acts for impeachment purposes crucial to the Defense. Not to present Petitioners Roommates as Witnesses for the Defense to prove she never screamed as she claimed and further failed to request Mistrial when Prosecutor committed Misconduct and Trial Counsel coerced Petitioner not to testify in his own behalf. In a He said She said case”;
(3) Ground Three: Prosecutorial misconduct, improper vouching, and misstating the evidence;
(4) Ground Four: “Abuse of Trial Courts Discretion During Motion For A New Trial”;
(5) Ground Five: Denial of right to present a defense “when the Trial Court refused to allow the Defense to present Expert Witness testimony”;
(6) Ground Six: Ineffective assistance of trial counsel “in his attempt to present the Expert Testimony of Dr. Eisen”;
(7) Ground Seven: Ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failure to “have requested an instruction on accident and argued it to the jury”;
(8) Ground Eight: Insufficient evidence of “more than one penetration”;
(9) Ground Nine: Insufficient evidence to support ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.