Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 33

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

James Alan Bush (DWF967-08086698) 885 North San Pedro Avenue San Jose, California 95110 Plaintiff in pro per

TO THE SUPREME COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

In re James Alan Bush, On Habeus Corpus

Case No. PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEUS CORPUS AND MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF

I. INTRODUCTION 1. On December 21st, 2006, Petitioner entered a plea of nolo contendere to a violation of Penal Code 475(a) and to a violation of Penal Code 496(a) in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, under docket number EE605073, in consideration of, and reliance upon, a specified plea agreement, in which a six-month jail sentence was suspended and probation was granted. On April 5th, 2007, the trial court modified a condition of that agreement without notice to, and without the consent of, the petitioner, and imposed the sentence suspended in the absence of legal justification or a new set of facts. PETITION PAGE 1 OF 14

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 2.

This petition will be made on the grounds that the modification was unlawful, in that 1) the petitioner was entitled to the specific performance of the plea bargain; 2) no new facts or circumstances existed or were presented to justify the imposition of the sentence suspended, and the imposition of the sentence suspended cannot be based on the same set of facts as the original order granting probation; 3) the petitioner neither consented to the modification nor authorized any legal counsel to consent to the modification on his behalf, in writing or otherwise; 4) the petitioner did not waive his right to a personal appearance at the modification hearing, and neither did he personally appear at the aforesaid hearing nor authorize any legal counsel to appear on his behalf; 5) the petitioner did not receive any notice of the hearing prior to it being held, and did not receive any notice of the modification afterwards; and, in any case, 6) the petitioner cannot be sentenced to a punishment that differs significantly from that which was originally agreed upon by the parties under the circumstances of this case, and the punishment that was not agreed upon is significant. II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On March 4th, 2009, Petitioner filed a habeus corpus petition in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, under docket number C 09-000946, which raised the same issues as presented herein; however, the aforementioned court denied the petition on the ground that the petitioner is required to bring his petition first to a state court, and, then, if denied, to a district court. PETITION PAGE 2 OF 14

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

3.

Accordingly, on August 4th, 2009, Petitioner filed the same petition in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, under docket number EE605073; however, on September 24th, 2009, because the petitioner failed to include copies of conflicting court records, the aforementioned court denied the petition on the ground that, contrary to the petitioners claim, court records indicate that [the petitioner] was present [at the hearing in Sunnyvale, which was held] on April 5, 2007, at 1:31 PM. [See Exhibit A.]

4.

In an amended petition, filed on April 13th, 2010, Petitioner included a certified copy of court records from the Hall of Justice in San Jose, which indicate that the petitioner was present at a hearing in San Jose that was held on the same day and at the same time as the hearing held in Sunnyvale. [See Exhibits B and C.] Insodoing, Petitioner demonstrated that he did not attend, nor could he have attended, the hearing in Sunnyvale, and, on this basis, requested that the court reconsider his petition.

5.

On May 17th, 2010, the court again denied the petition, this time on the ground that it was possible for the petitioner to be present at both hearings due to the fact that the minute orders are not meant to show that his appearance was at exactly the time shown. [See Exhibit D.]

6.

On June 24th, 2010, Petitioner filed the petition in the Court of Appeal for the State of California, Sixth Appellate District, under case number H035731, on the ground that, the issue of the petitioners appearance notwithstanding, the court did not consider all relevant factors in determining whether the modification was lawful; however, on July 20th, 2010, the petitioner was denied without explanation. [See

PETITION

PAGE 3 OF 14

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 9. 8. 7.

Exhibit E.] On December 3rd, 2010, Petitioner filed the petition, again, in the United States District Court for the Northern District Court of California, San Jose Division, under docket number C 10-05493 (PR) JF, and requested that the court issue an order to the respondents and/ or the custodian of the transcripts from the Sunnyvale hearing in question to produce such transcripts, so that the petitioner could demonstrate the veracity of his claims, and, in particular, that: a) the petitioners right to be present was violated when the trial court proceeded in his absence in the modification proceedings, in that he did not authorize his appearance by counsel and he did not knowingly or intentionally absent himself; b) the petitioner did not effectively waive his right to be present at the modification proceedings, in that he did not consent to such a waiver, verbally or in writing; and, c) the trial court did not ascertain whether the petitioner was advised of the right to be present and that consequences would flow from a waiver of that right. On January 26th, 2011, however, Petitioner obtained a copy of the aforedescribed transcripts in the criminal proceeding that is the subject of this petition, namely, The People of the State of California v. James Alan Bush, docket number EE605073, and then amended the petition on March 11th, 2011. In the amended petition, Petitioner attached a copy of the transcripts of the April 5th, 2007, modification proceedings [see Exhibit F], which he obtained during discovery in the related criminal matter, and in which the prosecution alleges that the petitioner failed to PETITION PAGE 4 OF 14

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

commence a six-month county jail sentence, and, therefore, violated the terms of his probation [see Exhibit G]. The transcripts support each and every claim made herein this petition, and also reveal a new fact, specifically, that counsel for the defendant failed to advise the trial court that no alternative to the discontinued work furlough program was offered to the petitioner, and that the defendant was deemed at sentencing to be ineligible for any other programs. 10. On June 13th, 2011, the court denied the petition without prejudice on the ground that the petitioner failed to exhaust all available remedies, and directed the petitioner to file this petition in the Supreme Court for the State of California. 11. Accordingly, on July 14th, 2011, Petitioner filed the petition in the Supreme Court for the State of California, which raises the same issues as presented in the petition filed in the district court. III. PARTIES 12. Petitioner, James Alan Bush (DWF967-08086698), is a pretrial detainee at the Santa Clara County Mail Jail. On December 21st, 2006, Petitioner plead nolo contendere to possessing, receiving, uttering, or passing forged paper, knowing same to be forged, i.e., Penal Code 475(A), and to selling, or aiding in selling, stolen property, i.e., Penal Code 496(A), and was granted probation for three years and was ordered to serve six months in a work furlough program, in lieu of a six-month county jail term. Petitioner enrolled in the work furlough program; however, before he was scheduled to begin the program, it was terminated due to budget cuts. 13. Respondent, Probation Officer Eric Salas, who was assigned as the PETITION PAGE 5 OF 14

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

probation officer for the petitioner by the Santa Clara County Adult Probation Department, was notified by the petitioner on or around March 7th, 2007, of the termination of the work furlough program. At that time, Respondent Salas advised the petitioner that another program, such as PSP, would be offered; however, Respondent Salas instead requested the Santa Clara County District Attorney to petition the trial court to impose the sentence suspended, yet failed to notify the petitioner before or after his request. 14. Respondent, Santa Clara County District Attorney, petitioned the trial court on April 5th, 2007, to modify a condition of the probation granted the petitioner; specifically, the respondent sought the imposition of the sentence suspended (i.e., a six-month county jail term) on the ground that the petitioner had yet to apply for the work furlough program. On that same day, the trial court, without having been advised by the respondent or counsel for the defendant of the termination of the work furlough program, imposed the sentence suspended. [See Exhibits C, F, and G.] 15. Respondent, Allen C. Speare, appeared on behalf of the petitioner at the April 5th, 2007, hearing without his knowledge or consent, and without having first obtained, in writing, the consent of the petitioner to the modification or a waiver of his right to a personal appearance; moreover, Respondent Speare was neither retained by the petitioner nor did he notify the petitioner of the hearing before or afterwards. Consequently, Petitioner did not consult with Respondent Speare or any other legal counsel prior to the aforesaid hearing. 16. Respondent, Donna Stichter, a clerk for the Superior Court in Sunnyvale, erroneously indicated in an official court record that the PETITION PAGE 6 OF 14

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

petitioner appeared personally at the April 5th, 2007, modification proceeding [see Exhibit C], when, in fact, the petitioner appeared at a hearing held in the Hall of Justice in San Jose on that same day and at that same time, as shown in another official court record [see Exhibit B], committing clerical misprision thereby. [See also Exhibit F.] IV. STATEMENT OF FACTS 17. On April 5th, 2007, Respondents Santa Clara County District Attorney and Probation Officer Eric Salas petitioned the trial court to modify a condition of the probation granted the petitioner on December 21st, 2006. The modification sought was the imposition of the sentence suspended, i.e., a six-month county jail term. 18. A hearing on the petition was held on that day, in which the trial court granted the request for the modification. [See Exhibit C.] 19. Petitioner did not attend, and could not have attended, the hearing on the day it was held because, not only did the respondents fail to notify the petitioner of the hearing before or afterwards, reasonable time was not given to secure the petitioners presence, as the petitioner was required to appear at, and did appear at, another hearing in San Jose on the same day and at the same time. [Compare Exhibits B and C.] Had the petitioner been notified of the hearing and of the respondents intent to modify the conditions of his probation, Petitioner would have requested that a new hearing be set; moreover, had the petitioner been present, he would have objected to the proposed modification, as so entitled by law. [See the attached memoranda.] PETITION PAGE 7 OF 14

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

20. Petitioner did not authorize or retain counsel to appear in his stead, as implied by court records, which indicate that Respondent Speare appeared on behalf of the petitioner at the April 5th, 2007, hearing. [See Exhibit C.] Petitioner, having had no notice of the hearing, would not have directed any counsel to appear on his behalf, and, having previously filed a lawsuit against Respondent Speare, would certainly not have directed the aforementioned respondent to appear on his behalf, either. In fact, as stated in his answer to the petitioners civil complaint, which was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, Civil Division, under case number 1-07-CV-089560 [Bush v. Pinto, et al.], Respondent Speare terminated his representation of the petitioner on December 21st, 2006; Respondent Speare also stated that he no longer represented the petitioner at the hearing, without effectively having provided any legal services to the petitioner. [See Exhibit F.] 21. Petitioner contends that he would not have consented to the imposition of the sentence suspended absent the advice of legal counsel and a lawful requirement, and only then with due process afforded him, e.g., the exercise of his right to be present at the hearing. 22. Respondents, whose duty it was to notify the petitioner of the modification subsequent to the April 5th, 2007, hearing, failed to perform this duty , which the petitioner believes was a willful and deliberate act on the part of the respondents, in retaliation for the petitioner having filed a lawsuit against Respondents Speare and Salas, the Santa Clara County Office of the District Attorney, and the arresting agency in the related criminal matter, namely, the Sunnyvale Department of Public Safety, and several of its employees. PETITION PAGE 8 OF 14

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

[See Bush v. Sunnyvale Department of Public Safety, et al., filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, under docket number C 08-01354 (PR) JF.] Rather than notify the petitioner of the modification, and of the existing requirement to commence a six-month county jail term (however erroneous), Respondents caused to be filed surreptitiously an affidavit on June 21st, 2007, declaring the petitioner in contempt of an order to commence a jail sentence; however, a warrant was never issued for the arrest of the petitioner, and no attempts were made by any of the respondents to notify the petitioner of the filing of the affidavit prior to his inadvertent discovery on January 23rd, 2009, when probation was revoked for failure to commence said jail sentence. [See Exhibit G.] V. CONTENTIONS 23. PETITIONER NEITHER CONSENTED TO THE MODIFICATION OF PROBATION IN WRITING NOR WAIVED HIS RIGHT TO A PERSONAL APPEARANCE AT THE MODIFICATION PROCEEDING, NOR DID PETITIONER CONSULT WITH COUNSEL [PEOPLE V. BORJA (2002) 95 CAL. APP. 4th 481, 115 CAL. RPTR. 2D 728; PEOPLE V. COOKSON (1991) 54 CAL. 3D 1091, 1095, 1097, 1100, 2 CAL. RPTR. 2D 176, 820 P.2D 278.] 24. THE TRIAL COURT HAS NO AUTHORITY TO MODIFY A CONDITION OF PROBATION PURSUANT TO PENAL CODE 1203.3 IF THAT CONDITION IS A NEGOTIATED CONDITION OF PROBATION INCLUDED IN A PLEA BARGAIN ACCEPTED BY THE COURT AND INCORPORATED INTO THE JUDGMENT UNLESS BOTH THE PROSECUTION AND THE DEFENSE CONSENT TO THE MODIFICATION [PEOPLE V. SEGURA, 80 CAL. RPTR. 3D 715, 188 P.3D 649 (CAL. 2008) ]. PETITION PAGE 9 OF 14

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

25. AN ORDER MODIFYING THE TERMS OF PROBATION TO THE DEFENDANTS DETRIMENT BASED UPON THE SAME FACTS AS THE ORIGINAL ORDER GRANTING PROBATION IS IN EXCESS OF THE COURTS JURISDICTION [IN RE BINE, 47 CAL. 2D 814, 306 P.2D 445 (1957) ]. 26. UPON A PLEA ACCEPTED PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF PENAL CODE 1192.5, A DEFENDANT CANNOT BE SENTENCED TO A MORE SIGNIFICANTLY SEVERE PUNISHMENT [PEOPLE V. WALKER, 54 CAL. 3D 1013, 1024-1026, 1 CAL. RPTR. 2D 902, 816 P.2D 861 (1991) ]. 27. THIS COURT SHOULD CONCLUDE THAT THE INTENDED PUNISHMENT THAT WAS NOT AGREED UPON IS SIGNIFICANT [PEOPLE V. WALKER, 54 CAL. 3D 1013, 10271028, 1 CAL. RPTR. 2D 902, 819 P.2D 861 (1991) ]. VI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF Petitioner is without remedy save by writ of habeus corpus. WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays the Court to: 1. 2. issue a writ of habeus corpus; reverse the decision of the trial court to impose the sentence suspended; and, 3. grant any other and further relief the Court deems proper. VII. VERIFICATION I, James Alan Bush, state: 1. 2. I am the petitioner in this action. I have read the foregoing petition for writ of habeus corpus and the facts stated herein are true of my own knowledge, except as to matters that are therein stated on my own information and belief, and as to those matters, I believe them to be true. PETITION PAGE 10 OF 14

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

3.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed this 14th day of July, 2011, at San Jose, California. [signature] Petitioner in pro per [DWF967-08086698] PFN and Booking Number VIII. MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 1. PETITIONER NEITHER CONSENTED TO THE MODIFICATION OF PROBATION IN WRITING NOR WAIVED HIS RIGHT TO A PERSONAL APPEARANCE AT THE MODIFICATION PROCEEDING, NOR DID PETITIONER CONSULT WITH COUNSEL. When modification proceedings are instituted on the courts own motion, or by a probation officer or a district attorney, notice of the motion or petition must be given to the appropriate persons, including the probationer, and the probationer must be informed of the right to counsel and may waive that right only in writing [People v. Borja (2002) 95 Cal. App. 4th 481, 115 Cal. Rptr. 2d 728]. The right to a personal appearance is waived only if the probationer agrees in writing to the modification of probation after being advised of the right to counsel. If the probationer consults with counsel before agreeing to a modification of probation, counsel must approve the modification and waiver at the hearing [People v. Cookson (1991) 54 Cal. 3d 1091, 1095, 1097, 1100, 2 Cal. Rptr. 2d 176, 820 P.2d 278]. 2. THE COURT CANNOT MODIFY THE CONDITIONS OF PROBATION PER PENAL CODE 1203.3 THAT WERE NEGOTIATED IN A PLEA BARGAIN WITHOUT THE KNOWLEDGE PETITION PAGE 11 OF 14

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 3.

AND CONSENT OF THE DEFENSE. The trial court has no authority to modify a condition of probation pursuant to Penal Code 1203.3 if that condition is a negotiated condition of probation in a plea bargain accepted by the court and incorporated into the judgment unless both the prosecution and the defense consent to the modification [People v. Segura, 80 Cal. Rptr. 3d 715, 188 P.3d 659 (Cal. 2008) (when the parties negotiate a plea agreement that grants probation condition upon service of a specified jail term, the resulting term of incarceration is not subject to subsequent modification without the consent of both parties) ]. When the trial court modified the petitioners term of incarceration from a six-month work furlough program to a six-month county jail term, it did so in excess of its jurisdiction. AN ORDER MODIFYING THE TERMS OF PROBATION TO THE DEFENDANTS DETRIMENT BASED UPON THE SAME FACTS AS THE ORIGINAL ORDER GRANTING PROBATION IS IN EXCESS OF THE COURTS JURISDICTION. If the imposition of a sentence has been suspended upon the granting of probation, the court, upon revocation, may impose a sentence for any period within the statutory maximum [P.C. 1203.3(c) however, ]; it is in excess of the courts jurisdiction to modify the terms of probation to the defendants detriment based upon the same facts as the original order granting probation [In re Bine, 47 Cal. 2d 814, 306 P.2d 445 (1957) Any modification to a sentence made at a modification ]. proceeding (and not a revocation proceeding) must be based on facts existing at the time probation was granted [C.R.C., Rule 4.435(b) (1); In re Rodriguez, 14 Cal. 3d 639, 122 Cal. Rptr. 552, 537 P.2d 384 (1975) ]. The hearing held on April 5th, 2007, was intended as a modification PETITION PAGE 12 OF 14

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 // // 6. 5. 4.

proceeding, and not a revocation proceeding. UPON A PLEA ACCEPTED PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF PENAL CODE 1192.5, A DEFENDANT CANNOT BE SENTENCED TO A MORE SIGNIFICANTLY SEVERE PUNISHMENT. Penal Code 1192.5 expressly authorizes a guilty plea that specifies the punishment to the same extent could be fixed by the court upon conviction. Once such a plea is accepted by the prosecutor and is approved by the court, the defendant cannot be sentenced to a punishment more severe than that specified in the plea. A more severe punishment is one that differs significantly from that which was agreed upon by the parties [People v. Walker, 54 Cal. 3d 1103, 1024-1026, 1 Cal. Rptr. 2d 902, 819 P.2d 861 (1991) ]. THE COURT SHOULD CONCLUDE THAT THE INTENDED PUNISHMENT THAT WAS NOT AGREED UPON IS SIGNIFICANT. A defendant should not receive significantly more punishment than that which he agreed upon [People v. Walker, 54 Cal. 3d 1013, 1027-1028, 1 Cal. Rptr. 2d 902, 819 P.2d 861 (1991) ]. THE NONBARGAINED PUNISHMENT IMPOSED BY THE COURT WAS SIGNIFICANT. Petitioner bargained for a six-month work furlough program, which would have allowed his to maintain employment while being rehabilitated by the county; however, this program was unexpectedly terminated shortly after the petitioners application was accepted, and, yet, the petitioner was not offered a comparable alternative. Instead, the probation department and the district attorney sought to incarcerate the petitioner for six months in the county jail.

PETITION

PAGE 13 OF 14

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 // // // PETITION

IX. CONCLUSION The issue presented herein is a pure question of law that can be resolved without reference to any facts or circumstances involving compliance with the terms of probation because the circumstances giving rise to this petition occurred prior to the revocation proceedings instituted on January 29th, 2009. For this reason, and the reasons stated above, the relief sought in the petition should be granted. Dated: July 14th, 2011 Respectfully submitted, [signature] James Alan Bush Petitioner in pro per X. PROOF OF SERVICE I, James Alan Bush, hereby certify that I delivered a true and correct copy of the attached Petition for Writ of Habeus Corpus by depositing said copy in a sealed envelope and place it in a depository specifically designated for hand-delivery of packages to the Santa Clara County District Attorney from the Santa Clara County Main Jail, in which I am currently incarcerated, on or around July 15th, 2011. Dated: July 15th, 2011 [signature] James Alan Bush Petitioner in pro per

PAGE 14 OF 14

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

James Alan Bush (DWF967-08086698) 885 North San Pedro Avenue San Jose, California 95110 Plaintiff in pro per

TO THE SUPREME COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

In re James Alan Bush, On Habeus Corpus

Case No. EXHIBIT A

EXHIBIT A Petitioner hereby incorporates Exhibit A, in support of the attached Petition for Writ of Habeus Corpus, which consists of an order from the Superior Court of California for the County of Santa Clara, issued on September 24th, 2009. In its order, the aforestated court denied the petition because the petitioner had not yet demonstrated that the minute orders indicating that he was present at the April 5th, 2007, modification proceedings were in error, as is now shown by comparing Exhibits B, C, and F. // // EXHIBIT A PAGE 1 OF 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 EXHIBIT A PAGE 2 OF 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

James Alan Bush (DWF967-08086698) 885 North San Pedro Avenue San Jose, California 95110 Plaintiff in pro per

TO THE SUPREME COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

In re James Alan Bush, On Habeus Corpus

Case No. EXHIBIT B

EXHIBIT B Petitioner hereby incorporates Exhibit B, in support of the attached Petition for Writ of Habeus Corpus, which consists of the minute order from the April 5th, 2007, hearing held in San Jose, California, and which indicate that the defendant was present at that hearing. When combined with the transcripts of the April 5th, 2007, hearing held in Sunnyvale, California, as shown in Exhibit F, this minute order supports the petitioners contention that he did not, and could not, have attended the hearing in Sunnyvale, as erroneously indicated in the minute order shown in Exhibit C. // EXHIBIT B PAGE 1 OF 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 EXHIBIT B PAGE 2 OF 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

James Alan Bush (DWF967-08086698) 885 North San Pedro Avenue San Jose, California 95110 Plaintiff in pro per

TO THE SUPREME COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

In re James Alan Bush, On Habeus Corpus

Case No. EXHIBIT C

EXHIBIT C Petitioner hereby incorporates Exhibit C, in support of the attached Petition for Writ of Habeus Corpus, which consists of the minute order from the April 5th, 2007, hearing held in Sunnyvale, California, and which erroneously indicates that the defendant was present at that hearing. This hearing was scheduled on the same day and at the same time as a hearing held in San Jose, California, which the petitioner did, in fact, attend, as shown in Exhibit B. Consequently, Petitioner could not have attended the hearing in Sunnvyvale, as is also proven by the transcripts, which are attached as Exhibit F. EXHIBIT C PAGE 1 OF 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 EXHIBIT C PAGE 2 OF 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

James Alan Bush (DWF967-08086698) 885 North San Pedro Avenue San Jose, California 95110 Plaintiff in pro per

TO THE SUPREME COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

In re James Alan Bush, On Habeus Corpus

Case No. EXHIBIT D

EXHIBIT D Petitioner hereby incorporates Exhibit D, in support of the attached Petition for Writ of Habeus Corpus, which consists of an order from the Superior Court of California for the County of Santa Clara, issued on May 17th, 2010. In its order, the afrestated court denied an amended petition, in which the petitioner attached two disparate minute orders, shown in Exhibits B and C, that erroneously state that the petitioner attended two separate court hearings simultaneously. Petitioner subsequently included the transcripts from the Sunnyvale hearing, shown in Exhibit F, in order to support his contention. EXHIBIT D PAGE 1 OF 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 EXHIBIT D PAGE 2 OF 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

James Alan Bush (DWF967-08086698) 885 North San Pedro Avenue San Jose, California 95110 Plaintiff in pro per

TO THE SUPREME COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

In re James Alan Bush, On Habeus Corpus

Case No. EXHIBIT E

EXHIBIT E Petitioner hereby incorporates Exhibit E, in support of the attached Petition for Writ of Habeus Corpus, which consists of an order from the Court of Appeal for the State of California, Sixth Appellate District, issued on July 20th, 2010. Petitioner reqeusted on June 24th, 2010, that the aforementioned court revoke an order issued by the Superior Court [see Exhibit D], which denied the petition, on the ground that other factors in determining whether the modification was lawful were not considered, and, that these other factors are sufficient to issue a writ of habeus corpus. // EXHIBIT E PAGE 1 OF 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 EXHIBIT E PAGE 2 OF 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

James Alan Bush (DWF967-08086698) 885 North San Pedro Avenue San Jose, California 95110 Plaintiff in pro per

TO THE SUPREME COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

In re James Alan Bush, On Habeus Corpus

Case No. EXHIBIT F

EXHIBIT F Petitioner hereby incorporates Exhibit F, in support of the attached Petition for Writ of Habeus Corpus, which consists of the transcripts from the April 5th, 2007, modification proceedings held in Sunnyvale, California, that are the subject of the attached petition. When combined with the minute order shown in Exhibit B, which indicates that the petitioner was present at a hearing held in San Jose, California, the transcript supports the petitioners contention that he did not attend the heraing held in Sunnyvale; it also shows that he was ineffectively represented by counsel. // EXHIBIT F PAGE 1 OF 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 EXHIBIT F PAGE 2 OF 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 EXHIBIT F PAGE 3 OF 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 EXHIBIT F PAGE 4 OF 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

James Alan Bush (DWF967-08086698) 885 North San Pedro Avenue San Jose, California 95110 Plaintiff in pro per

TO THE SUPREME COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

In re James Alan Bush, On Habeus Corpus

Case No. EXHIBIT G

EXHIBIT G Petitioner hereby incorporates Exhibit G, in support of the attached Petition for Writ of Habeus Corpus, which consists of the Petition for Modification or Change of Terms of Probation that was filed by the Santa Clara County District Attorney on Jaunary 29th, 2009. The petition shows that the terms of the petitioners probation were modified at the April 5th, 2007, hearing that is the subject of this petition, and also alleges that the petitioner failed to commence a sixmonth county jail sentence. It also constitutes the first and only notification received by the petitioner of the modification. EXHIBIT G PAGE 1 OF 5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 EXHIBIT G PAGE 2 OF 5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 EXHIBIT G PAGE 3 OF 5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 EXHIBIT G PAGE 4 OF 5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 EXHIBIT G PAGE 5 OF 5