Investigating Police Corruption – The Case of Richard Arciniega and LAPD Misconduct
Presented by: Darion Alexander
Objective:
To expose and demand an investigation into the corrupt actions of then-Officer Richard Arciniega and the systemic failures of the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD), the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office, and the Los Angeles County Justice System.

1. Introduction: A Call for Justice
• My name is Darion Alexander, and I was wrongfully convicted in 1998 based on falsified evidence, perjured testimony, and misconduct by law enforcement.
• I served 27 years for crimes I did not commit due to a fabricated case led by then-Officer Richard Arciniega and supported by Detective Jerry Johnson, the LAPD, and the District Attorney’s Office.
• Before my release, I uncovered critical evidence that had been withheld from me for 28 years, proving the violation of my constitutional rights.
• This case is not an isolated incident but part of a pattern of police corruption that must be exposed and investigated.

2. Background: The 1996 Gang Sweep and My Wrongful Arrest
• May – July 1996: LAPD conducted a gang sweep targeting the BSVs (a local gang).
• February 1996: A robbery and attempted murder occurred.
• Then-Officer Richard Arciniega questioned victims and manipulated testimony to implicate me.
• The arresting officers claimed to have a warrant but failed to provide valid documentation.
• A false warrant number was submitted in the arrest report, with no actual warrant issued.

3. The Legal Violations and Cover-Up
• False Evidence & Perjury:
 - Victim’s testimony was coerced under pressure from law enforcement.
 - Falsified reports and planted booking photos were used to create a fabricated six-pack lineup.
 - Statements were manipulated to incriminate me despite no direct evidence linking me to the crime.
• Invalid Arrest Warrant & Concealed Evidence:
 - DOJ Analyst Ikyko Kawano (2023 testimony) confirmed that the LAPD never declared my arrest as being made pursuant to a warrant.
 - The Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office refused to provide proof of a warrant’s existence.
• Obstruction of Justice:
 - The LAPD, District Attorney’s Office, and courts withheld exculpatory evidence from my defense for 28 years.
 - This obstruction prevented me from meaningfully defending myself or challenging my conviction.

4. The Role of Richard Arciniega & LAPD’s Corrupt Practices
• Officer Richard Arciniega involvement:
 - Fabricated charges under the pretense of an official act.
 - Used false evidence and perjury to secure wrongful convictions.
 - Engaged in coercion and misconduct that directly impacted my case.
• LAPD’s CRASH Unit & Pattern of Corruption:
 - The Community Resources Against Street Hoodlums (CRASH) unit was notorious for corruption, false arrests, and police brutality.
 - Similar misconduct was seen in the Rampart Scandal, where officers falsified evidence, framed innocent people, and violated civil rights.
 - Arciniega and other officers operated under a culture of impunity, enabling systemic abuses.

5. The Consequences of This Corruption
• Wrongful Convictions: My case is one of many where false evidence and corrupt policing led to decades-long imprisonment.
• Destroyed Lives: Families torn apart, opportunities lost, and psychological trauma suffered by victims of wrongful convictions.
• Erosion of Public Trust: Communities lose faith in the justice system when police operate without accountability.

6. Call to Action: Demanding an Investigation
• Independent Review & Investigation:
 - A full investigation into Richard Arciniega’s activities during the 1996 gang sweep and beyond.
 - Examination of all cases he was involved in for evidence of misconduct and wrongful convictions.
• Accountability for LAPD and the Justice System:
 - Hold the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office accountable for withholding exculpatory evidence.
 - Review other cases where LAPD officers falsified reports and coerced testimonies.
• Policy Reforms & Systemic Changes:
 - Implement stronger oversight and transparency for LAPD investigations.
 - Strengthen laws that criminalize police misconduct and perjury.
 - Improve access to legal resources for wrongfully convicted individuals.

7. Conclusion: The Fight for Justice Continues
• My wrongful conviction is proof of a corrupt system that still exists today.
• This case is about more than just me—it is about countless others who have been victimized by police misconduct.
• We must demand justice, accountability, and reform to ensure no one else suffers the same fate.

"An injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." – Martin Luther King Jr.

**Thank you. Let’s take action and demand the truth.**

Next Steps: How You Can Help
• Support calls for an investigation into Officer Richard Arciniega and the LAPD’s 1996 gang sweep.
• Reach out to legal advocacy groups that fight wrongful convictions.
• Raise awareness by sharing this case and demanding justice for all victims of police corruption.
• Push for legislative change to prevent future abuses in the justice system.

DARRION LARRY ALEXANDER

2617 W. 78th PL

INGLEWOOD, CALIFORNIA 90305

(213) 334-0042

Darrion5177@gmail.com

October 6, 2024

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, | Case No.

_____________________

PLAINTIFF, | MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT

| PURSUANT TO PENAL CODE SECTION

V.S. | 1473.7(a)(1) AND (2) THE UNLAWFUL

| ARREST OF PETITIONER IN VIOLATION TO

DARRION LARRY ALEXANDER, | THE FOURTH AMENDMENT TO THE

PETITIONER. | CONSTITUTION AND THE CALIFORNIA

—---------------------------- CONSTITUTION art.1, sections 7(a),13 and 15

TO THE HONORABLE COURT AND ALL PARTIES HEREIN:

THE PETITIONER DARRION LARRY ALEXANDER, RESPECTFULLY MOVES THIS

COURT TO VACATE HIS JUDGMENTS PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE

SECTION 1473.7(a)(1) AND (2), ON THE GROUNDS THAT:

1 THE JUDGMENTS IN CASE NUMBER BA159821 AND BA134616, WAS BASED

ON PREJUDICIAL ERROR THAT DAMAGED THE DEFENDANT’S ABILITY TO

MEANINGFULLY UNDERSTAND, DEFEND AGAINST, OR KNOWINGLY ACCEPT

THE LEGAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE CONVICTIONS; AND

2 NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE ESTABLISHES THAT FALSE OR MISLEADING

EVIDENCE WAS RELIED UPON TO OBTAIN THOSE CONVICTIONS, AND

MATERIAL EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE WAS WITHHELD IN VIOLATION OF DUE

PROCESS.

THIS MOTION IS SUPPORTED BY THE FOLLOWING MEMORANDUM OF POINTS

AND AUTHORITIES OF MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO PENAL

CODE SECTION 1473.7, AND THE ATTACHED EXHIBITS AND ANY ADDITIONAL

EVIDENCE OR ARGUMENTS PRESENTED AT THE HEARING. PENAL CODESECTION 1473.7, ALLOWS PETITIONER TO FILE UNDER THIS SECTION ONCE

THE PETITIONER IS RELEASED FROM CUSTODY / PAROLE, WHICH

EFFECTIVELY TOOK PLACE ON JANUARY 27, 2025.

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF THE

MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT, PURSUANT TO PENAL CODE SECTION

1473.7(a)(1) and (2).

1. INTRODUCTION

THE PETITIONER, DARRION LARRY ALEXANDER, RESPECTFULLY SUBMITS

THIS MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES, IN SUPPORT OF HIS

MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO PENAL CODE SECTION

1473.7(a)(1) AND (2). THIS MOTION IS BASED ON THE USE OF FALSE EVIDENCE,

SUPPRESSION OF MATERIAL EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE, FALSE TESTIMONY

AND PREJUDICIAL ERROR THAT PREVENTED THE PETITIONER FROM

MEANINGFULLY DEFENDING AGAINST HIS CONVICTION.

SINCE 2001, THE PETITIONER HAS CONSISTENTLY RAISED CLAIMS OF

MISCONDUCT REGARDING HIS ARREST AND CONVICTION, (SEE EXHIBIT “A”.)

INCLUDING CONTESTING THE FALSE PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST WARRANT

AND SEARCH WARRANT, AND THE FABRICATED EVIDENCE USED TO

PROSECUTE THE PETITIONER. THE COURT DENIED THESE CLAIMS DUE TO A

LACK OF SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. NOW, HOWEVER, NEWLY DISCOVERED

EVIDENCE, INCLUDING TESTIMONY FROM A DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

ANALYST CONFIRMING THE FALSE WARRANT NUMBER, (SEE EXHIBIT “B”.)

DEMONSTRATES THAT PRIOR RULINGS FAILED TO ADDRESS SIGNIFICANT

LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS.

THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (DOJ) HAS CONFIRMED THAT THE

PETITIONER WAS NOT ARRESTED PURSUANT TO A WARRANT ON JULY 03,

1996. THE PROSECUTION AND LAW ENFORCEMENT PRESENTED FABRICATED

EVIDENCE, FALSE STATEMENTS, AND MANIPULATED FINGERPRINT ANALYSIS

TO OBTAIN A CONVICTION. TRIAL COUNSEL FAILED TO INVESTIGATE MATERIAL

EVIDENCE, DEPRIVING THE PETITIONER A MEANINGFUL DEFENSE.

THE EVIDENCE NEWLY OBTAINED BY THE PETITIONER WARRANTS VACATUR

OF THE JUDGMENT GIVEN THESE ERRORS AND CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS,

THE PETITIONER SEEKS TO HAVE THE JUDGMENTS VACATED UNDER PENAL

CODE SECTION 1473.7(a)(1) AND (2), AND THE 4th AND 14th AMENDMENT TO

THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, AND AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING HELD TO

ASSESS THE MERITS OF THIS MOTION AND TO PREVENT A MISCARRIAGE OF

JUSTICE.

2. STATEMENT OF FACTS

JULY 02,1998, THE PETITIONER WAS SENTENCED TO SERVE 30 YEARS AND 4

MONTHS, IN THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS ANDREHABILITATION, UNDER CASE NUMBER BA159821, FOR FIRST-DEGREE

ROBBERY AND THE UNLAWFUL DRIVING OR TAKING OF A VEHICLE WITHOUT

THE OWNERS CONSENT. THROUGHOUT THE PROCEEDINGS, LAW

ENFORCEMENT AND THE PROSECUTION ENGAGED IN MULTIPLE ACTS OF

MISCONDUCT, INCLUDING :

1.FABRICATING A WARRANT NUMBER IN THE ARREST REPORT

●

THE DOJ CONFIRMED THAT NO VALID WARRANT EXISTED FOR THE

PETITIONER’S ARREST, ON JULY 03, 1996, YET LAW ENFORCEMENT

FALSELY INCLUDED A FABRICATED WARRANT NUMBER IN THE ARREST

REPORT TO MISLEAD THE COURT INTO BELIEVING THE PETITIONER,

WAS ARRESTED PURSUANT TO A PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST

WARRANT, WHEN NO REASONABLE OR PROBABLE CAUSE EXITED FOR

PETITIONER’S ARREST. (SEE PENAL CODE SECTIONS 115(a) AND 132 )

2.FILING A FALSE STATEMENT REPORT IN THE ARREST REPORT

●

OFFICER’S CREATED AND FILED A FALSE STATEMENT REPORT ,ON

NOVEMBER 20, 1997, WHICH WAS INTRODUCED AS EVIDENCE AGAINST

THE PETITIONER, TO MISLEAD THE COURT INTO BELIEVING

PETITIONER’S ADMISSION OF GUILT.(SEE EXHIBIT “C”, SEE PENAL CODE

SECTION 115(a)(b) AND (d), AND 132)

3.MISREPRESENTING THE BOOKING PHOTOGRAPH

●

THE BOOKING PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN ON NOVEMBER 20,1997, WAS

FALSELY PRESENTED AS THE PHOTOGRAPH USED IN A SIX-PACK LINEUP

ON NOVEMBER 18, 1997, MISLEADING THE COURT REGARDING THE

LEGITIMACY OF THE IDENTIFICATION PROCESS.(PENAL CODE SECTION

115(a)(b) AND 132)

4.MANIPULATING FINGERPRINT EVIDENCE

●

TWO INITIAL FINGERPRINT EXPERTS SUBMITTED A REPORT

DETERMINING THAT THE DEFENDANT’S FINGERPRINTS WERE NOT

FOUND AT THE VICTIM’S RESIDENCE.

●

THE PROSECUTION INTRODUCED A THIRD FINGERPRINT ANALYST WHO

WAS ALLOWED TO TESTIFY THAT THE FIRST TWO FINGERPRINT

EXPERTS ARE ROOKIES, AND AFTER GOING OVER THEIR WORK HE

DISCOVERED THE DEFENDANT’S FINGERPRINT AT THE SCENE. BUT NO

ONE CORROBORATED THE THIRD ANALYST WORK.

●

TRIAL COUNSEL FAILED TO CHALLENGE THE CREDIBILITY OF THIS THIRD

ANALYSIS OR INVESTIGATE THE INITIAL FINGERPRINT EXPERTS

FINDINGS AND BACKGROUND TO DETERMINE THE ACCURACY OF THE

PROSECUTION'S WITNESSES CLAIMS, THUS DENYING THE PETITIONER A

CREDIBLE DEFENCE AND AFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL.

5.DENIAL OF ACCESS TO EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE●

IN 2015, THE PETITIONER FILED A WRIT OF MANDATE UNDER THE

CALIFORNIA PUBLIC RECORDS ACT, SEEKING :

1. 2. THE ORIGINAL FINGERPRINT COMPARISON REPORTS,

A COLOR COPY OF THE BOOKING PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN ON NOVEMBER

20, 1997 AT 77th DIVISION OF THE L.A.P.D,

3. A COPY OF THE ALLEGED SEARCH WARRANT.

●

THE COURT DELAYED ITS RESPONSE FOR 2 YEARS AND 3 MONTHS

DESPITE THE STATUTORY TIMELINES GOVERNING REPONSES TO CPRA

REQUEST. PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE,

SECTION 1089.5, AND THEN :

●

DENIED THE BOOKING PHOTOGRAPH BECAUSE THE LAPD REQUESTED

IT BE KEEP CONFIDENTIAL,

●

CLAIMED THE SEARCH WARRANT WAS DESTROYED,(SEE EXHIBIT “G”)

●

REFUSED TO DISCLOSE THE FINGERPRINT REPORTS, DEEMING THEM

INVESTIGATIVE RECORDS.

6.DENIAL OF APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATE OF PROBABLE CAUSE

●

IN 2020, THE PETITIONER FILED AN APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATE OF

PROBABLE CAUSE, UNDER PENAL CODE SECTION 1237.5, CITING THE

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE’S FINDINGS THAT NO WARRANT EXISTED FOR

THE ARREST MADE ON JULY 03, 1996.

●

THE COURT DENIED THE APPLICATION AS SUCCESSIVE, WITHOUT

INVESTIGATING THE CLAIMS OR CONSIDERING THE NEWLY DISCOVERED

EVIDENCE.

THE DEFENDANT HAS CONSISTENTLY PURSUED LEGAL REMEDIES TO

CHALLENGE THESE CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS, ONLY TO BE

PROCEDURALLY BARRED AT EVERY STEP. IN SCHLUP v. DELO, 513 U.S. 298

(1995), THE U.S. SUPREME COURT RULED THAT PROCEDURAL BARS MUST

GIVE WAY WHEN NEW EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATES A CLEAR MISCARRIAGE OF

JUSTICE.

3.LEGAL ARGUMENTS

A. PENAL CODE SECTION 1473.7(a)(1), ALLOWS VACATUR OF A

CONVICTION IF PREJUDICIAL ERROR DAMAGED THE PETITIONERS

ABILITY TO UNDERSTAND, DEFEND AGAINST, OR KNOWINGLY ACCEPT

THE LEGAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE CONVICTION.

1. THE FABRICATION OF A WARRANT NUMBER IN THE ARREST REPORT

MISLED THE DEFENDANT AND THE COURT, INTO BELIEVING THAT THE

LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT, HAD PROBABLE CAUSE TO

ARREST THE PETITIONER, ON JULY 03, 1996, PREVENTING THE

PETITIONER FROM EFFECTIVELY CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF HISARREST.(SEE PENAL CODE SECTION 115(a) “EVERY PERSON WHO

KNOWINGLY PROCURES OR OFFERS ANY FALSE OR FORGED

INSTRUMENT TO BE FILED, REGISTERED IN ANY PUBLIC OFFICE WITHIN

THIS STATE, WHICH INSTRUMENT, IF GENUINE, MIGHT BE FILED,

REGISTERED, OR RECORDED UNDER ANY LAW OF THIS STATE OR OF

THE UNITED STATES, IS GUILTY OF A FELONY”.) IN PEOPLE v.

MAESE,(1980) 105 Cal. App. 3d 710, THE COURT STATED ; “THE INITIAL

QUESTION TO BE DECIDED IN ALL CASES IN WHICH A PETITIONER

COMPLAINS OF PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT FOR THE FIRST TIME ON

APPEAL IS WHETHER A TIMELY OBJECTION AND ADMONITION WOULD

HAVE CURED THE HARM. IF IT WOULD, THE CONTENTION MUST BE

REJECTED; IF IT WOULD NOT, THE COURT MUST THEN AND ONLY THEN

REACH THE ISSUE WHETHER ON THE WHOLE RECORD THE HARM

RESULTED IN A MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE

CONSTITUTION.” SEE PENAL CODE SECTION 132, AND PEOPLE v. GREEN,

Supra, 27 Cal. 3d at p. 34. TESTIMONY PROVIDED BY DEPARTMENT OF

JUSTICE ANALYST MS. IKYKO KAWANO, AT AN OCTOBER 17, 2023,

ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING UNDER AGENCY CASE SA2022305674

AND OAH No.2023040597, PURSUANT TO PENAL CODE SECTION 11126 (c),

THAT WAS REQUESTED BY THE PETITIONER, TO DISPUTE THE

INACCURACY AND/OR INCOMPLETENESS OF THE DOJ’S RECORDS THAT

LOGGED THE PETITIONER’S JULY 03, 1996, ARREST “AS NOT BEING

MADE PURSUANT TO A WARRANT”, AND CONFIRMED THAT :

1. THE “WARRANT NUMBER” IN THE ARREST REPORT WAS INVALID;

2. DESPITE REPEATED EFFORTS BY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT FAILED TO PROVIDE ANY

PROOF THAT THE ARREST MADE ON JULY 03, 1996, WAS

PURSUANT TO A VALID WARRANT AND/OR REASONABLE OR

PROBABLE CAUSE;

3. ON JULY 03, 1996, THE LAPD DID NOT FILE THE ARREST OF

PETITIONER AS BEING MADE PURSUANT TO A WARRANT WITH THE

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; AND

4. THE ONLY THING THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT

PROVIDED AS PROOF OF THE EXISTENCE OF A WARRANT FOR

THE JULY O3, 1996, ARREST, TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE IS

THE ARREST REPORT THAT CONTAINS A FALSE WARRANT

NUMBER, PROVING THAT NO WARRANT EXISTED FOR THE ARREST

OF THE PETITIONER ON JULY 03, 1996. (NAPUE v. ILLINOIS, 360

U.S.264 (1959), (SEE EXHIBIT “E”.))B.TRIAL COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO INVESTIGATE AND ITS IMPACT ON

SENTENCING WARRANT VACATUR OF JUDGMENT, DUE TO INEFFECTIVE

ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, PURSUANT TO PENAL CODE SECTION

1473.7(a)(1)(2)

ON JULY 02, 1998, TRIAL COUNSEL DURING SENTENCING, ADVISED THE

PETITIONER, TO ADMIT THE PRIOR ALLEGATION, WHEN TRIAL COUNSEL HAD

IN ITS POSSESSION A SUMMARY OF MY CRIMINAL HISTORY IN HER

SENTENCING MEMORANDUM (SEE EXHIBIT “I”) AND THE COPY OF THE JULY 03,

1996, ARREST REPORT THAT CONTAINS AN INVALID WARRANT NUMBER (SEE

EXHIBIT “J”) AND FAILED TO INVESTIGATE THE FACT THAT PETITIONER’S JULY

03, 1996, ARREST WAS NOT RECORDED AS BEING MADE PURSUANT TO A

WARRANT IN MY CRIMINAL HISTORY AND TRIAL COUNSEL FAILED TO

QUESTION THE INVALID WARRANT NUMBER IN THE ARREST REPORT,(SEE

PENAL CODE SECTION 115(a)), THEREBY SUBJECTING THE PETITIONER TO A

SIGNIFICANTLY LONGER PRISON SENTENCE, WHEN TRIAL COUNSEL HAD

EVIDENCE THAT QUESTIONED THE PROBABLE CAUSE OF THE PETITIONER’S

PRIOR ARREST AND THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT. ( IN REED v. FARLEY,

512 U.S. 339 (1994), THE SUPREME COURT RECOGNIZED THAT VIOLATIONS OF

FEDERAL STATUTORY RIGHTS ARE AMONG THE “NONCONSTITUTIONAL

LAPSES WE HAVE HELD NOT COGNIZABLE IN A POST CONVICTION

PROCEEDING” UNLESS THE VIOLATIONS MEET THE “FUNDAMENTAL DEFECT”

TEST ANNOUNCED IN HILL v. UNITED STATES, 368 U.S. 424, 428 (1962).

MEDELLIN v. DRETKE, 544 U.S. 660, 664 (2005) (PER CURIAM). A FUNDAMENTAL

DEFECT IS ONE WHICH “INHERENTLY RESULTS IN A COMPLETE MISCARRIAGE

OF JUSTICE” OR IS AN “OMISSION INCONSISTENT WITH THE RUDIMENTARY

DEMANDS ON FAIR PROCEDURE.” MORA v. LOTHROP, (Nov. 14, 2018) 2018 U.S.

Dist. Lexis 194430.) IN DISCOVERING THE LACK OF JURISDICTION AFFORDED

THE COURT BECAUSE OF PROBABLE CAUSE CONCERNS IN PETITIONER’S

PRIOR ARREST, THE SENTENCE THE PETITIONER WOULD HAVE RECEIVED FOR

THE CURRENT OFFENSE WOULD BE LESS THAN TEN YEARS, IT IS DUE TO

COUNSEL'S NEGLIGENCE THAT THE PETITIONER WAS SUBJECTED TO MORE

THAN TWO DECADES OF PRISON TIME THAT HAS BEEN PROVEN THE

PETITIONER DID NOT HAVE TO SERVE. IN PEOPLE v. LEDESMA, 43 Cal.3d

171,215-218 (1987), THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT HELD THAT

INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL ARISES WHERE COUNSEL FAILS TO

PERFORM REASONABLE INVESTIGATION INTO FACTS CRITICAL TO THE

DEFENSE, PARTICULARLY WHEN SUCH FAILURE AFFECTS SENTENCING

OUTCOMES.

2. TRIAL COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO INVESTIGATE THE FINGERPRINT

ANALYSIS AND BOOKING PHOTOGRAPH DISCREPANCIES DEPRIVED THE3. PETITIONER OF A MATERIAL DEFENSE. AND TRIAL COUNSEL ELECTED

TO JEOPARDIZE THE PETITIONERS DEFENSE BY QUESTIONING OFFICER

RICHARD ARCINIEGA, OFF THE RECORD, ABOUT THE WHEREABOUTS OF

THE BOOKING PHOTOGRAPH, WHO INFORMED COUNSEL, THE BOOKING

PHOTOGRAPH WAS PLACED IN A SUSPECTED CRIMINAL OFFENDER

IDENTIFICATION BOOK AND CIRCULATED THROUGHOUT THE LAPD, AND

THAT HE (THEN OFFICER RICHARD ARCINIEGA) COULD NOT OBTAIN A

COPY OF THE BOOKING PHOTOGRAPH. THE REQUESTED

CONFIDENTIALITY OF THE BOOKING PHOTOGRAPH, WAS FIRST

DISCOVERED BY THE PETITIONER, AS BEING REQUESTED BY THE LOS

ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT TO BE KEPT CONFIDENTIAL, ON

AUGUST 17, 2015, (SEE EXHIBIT “G”), 17 YEARS AFTER THE PETITIONER

WAS FOUND GUILTY. AND, THAT ARRESTING OFFICER RICHARD

ARCINIEGA, WAS PROSECUTED AND CONVICTED OF FALSIFYING

STATEMENTS IN THE POLICE REPORT, AND FALSIFYING SIX-PACK

PHOTOGRAPHIC LINEUPS, THE EXACT SAME THING PETITIONER

INFORMED COUNSEL THAT OFFICER RICHARD ARCINIEGA, WAS DOING

WHEN PETITIONER SEEN HIS BOOKING PHOTOGRAPH APART OF A

SIX-PACK PHOTOGRAPHIC LINEUP DURING TRIAL. INSTEAD OF

INVESTIGATING THE PETITIONER’S CLAIMS TRIAL COUNSEL STAYED

SILENT ON THE POINT THAT FALSE EVIDENCE WAS BEING USED TO

MALICIOUSLY PROSECUTE THE PETITIONER. NAPUE v. ILLINOIS, (360 U.S.

264, 269(1959) RELIANCE ON FALSE EVIDENCE, COMBINED WITH THE

SUPPRESSION OF EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE, RENDERS A CONVICTION

FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED.

TRIAL COUNSEL'S FAILURE TO INVESTIGATE FINGERPRINT EVIDENCE

THE PROSECUTION CLAIMED THAT A THIRD FINGERPRINT ANALYST HAD

REVIEWED AND OVERTURNED THE FINDINGS OF TWO PREVIOUS

FINGERPRINTS EXPERTS WHO DETERMINED THAT THE PETITIONER’S

FINGERPRINTS WERE NOT PRESENT AT THE VICTIM’S RESIDENCE. THE

PROSECUTION FURTHER ASSERTED THAT THE FIRST TWO FINGERPRINT

ANALYST WERE “ROOKIES” AND THAT THE THIRD ANALYST DISCOVERED

THE PETITIONER’S FINGERPRINTS AT THE CRIME SCENE. TRIAL

COUNSEL FAILED TO INVESTIGATE THIS CLAIM OR CHALLENGE THE

PROSECUTION'S ASSERTIONS REGARDING THE FINGERPRINT

EVIDENCE, DEPRIVING THE PETITIONER OF A CRITICAL DEFENSE WHEN,

THE THIRD ANALYST FINDINGS WAS NOT SUPERVISED OR

CORROBORATED AND/OR AUTHENTICATED. (SEE STRICKLAND v.

WASHINGTON, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF4. COUNSEL THAT PREJUDICES THE DEFENDANT REQUIRES VACATUR OF

THE JUDGMENT.)

C. PREJUDICIAL ERROR AND SUPPRESSION OF EXCULPATORY

EVIDENCE OF COMPLAINTS AGAINST OFFICER RICHARD

ARCINIEGA WARRANT VACATUR OF JUDGMENT (PENAL CODE

SECTION 1473.7 (a)(1))

COMPLAINTS AGAINST RICHARD ARCINIEGA, DATING BACK TO 1997,

DETAILED PATTERNS OF FILING FALSE POLICE REPORTS, GIVING FALSE

TESTIMONY, TAMPERING WITH PHOTOGRAPHIC LINEUPS, AND

COERCING CONFESSIONS, THE COURT PREJUDICIALLY WITHHELD

EVIDENCE OF OFFICER RICHARD ARCINIEGA, PROPENSITY TO FILE

FALSE ARREST REPORTS, AND GIVE FALSE TESTIMONY, DURING THE

PITCHESS HEARING HELD MARCH 31, 1998, WHEN THE HONORABLE

JUDGE LARRY P. FIDLER, DECLARED THERE ARE NO DISCOVERABLE

MATERIAL, WHEN THE FEDERAL COURT IN ALEXIS GARCIA V. JEFF

MACOMBER, 2016 U.S. DIST. LEXIS 94065, ESTABLISHED THE EXISTENCE

OF COMPLAINTS IN RICHARD ARCINIEGA’S FILE DATING BACK FROM

1997. COUNSEL FAILED TO INVESTIGATE OR PRESENT EVIDENCE OF

OFFICER ARCINIEGA, HISTORY OF MISCONDUCT, DESPITE HIS CENTRAL

ROLE IN THE PETITIONER’S ARREST AND PROSECUTION. THIS OMISSION

DEPRIVED THE JURY OF CRITICAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE

RELIABILITY OF LAW ENFORCEMENT TESTIMONY AND THE FACT THAT

OFFICER ARCINIEGA, INTENTIONALLY FILED FALSE ARREST REPORTS

AGAINST CO-DEFENDANT, THIS INFORMATION WOULD HAVE BEEN VITAL

TO THE JURY WHO ASKED FOR A READ BACK OF OFFICER ARCINIEGA,

TESTIMONY ABOUT THE PETITIONER BEFORE RETURNING A GUILTY

VERDICT; THE PETITIONER LATER DISCOVERED THAT A FEDERAL COURT

RULING IN ALEXIS GARCIA v. JEFF MACOMBER, 2016 U.S. Dist. Lexis 94065

(E.D.Cal.2016), FOUND EIGHT PERTINENT COMPLAINTS WERE FILED

AGAINST DETECTIVE RICHARD ARCINIEGA, BETWEEN 1997 AND 2006.

AND THAT IT WAS THE 1997 COMPLAINT BY PETITIONER’S

CO-DEFENDANT, MARCELLUS MOORE, THAT THE FEDERAL COURT CITED

TO SHOW THAT DETECTIVE ARCINIEGA AND OTHER OFFICERS

PHYSICALLY ASSAULTED HIM DURING AN ARREST AND THEN FALSELY

REPORTED THAT HE SHOT AT THEM.

THE COURT'S DENIAL OF ACCESS TO EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE AND ITS

MISLEADING STATEMENT TO PETITIONER, THAT THERE ARE NO

DISCOVERABLE MATERIALS, WHEN IN FACT, THERE WAS MATERIAL TO

BE DISCLOSED, DURING THE PITCHESS HEARING IN 1998, WARRANTS

VACATUR OF JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO PENAL CODE SECTION1473.7(a)(1) AND(2), WHERE THE PETITIONERS DUE PROCESS AND

EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED BY THE

COURT WHICH CAUSED IRREPARABLE HARM BY KNOWINGLY ALLOWING

A WITNESS TO TESTIFY WHO HAS A PROPENSITY TO FILE FALSE

ARREST REPORTS AND LYING UNDER OATH, AND IS GROUNDS FOR

VACATING THE JUDGMENT, UNDER BRADY v. MARYLAND, 373 U.S.

83(1963), WHICH REQUIRES THE PROSECUTION TO DISCLOSE EVIDENCE

FAVORABLE TO THE DEFENSE. IT'S IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER OFFICER

RICHARD ARCINIEGAS, CENTRAL ROLE IN GETTING THE PETITIONER

CONVICTED IN BOTH OF PETITIONERS PRIOR CASES. BECAUSE IT WAS

RICHARD ARCINIEGA, WHO IN 1996, WAS INTERVIEWING THE VICTIMS

THAT IDENTIFIED THE PETITIONER, AS THE SUSPECT OF A CRIME AND

TESTIFIED AS TO THAT DURING PRELIMINARY HEARING, ALSO, THE

VICTIM TESTIFIED THAT HIS BROTHER TOLD HIM THAT PETITIONER SHOT

AT THEM.(SEE CASE NUMBER BA134616, RT, PAGE15) IT WAS OFFICER

RICHARD ARCINIEGA, TESTIMONY ABOUT THE PETITIONER , THE JURY

ASKED THE COURT FOR A READ BACK OF BEFORE FINDING THE

PETITIONER GUILTY, ESTABLISHING THE TRUSTWORTHINESS OF HIS

TESTIMONY. INTENTIONAL SUPPRESSION OF MATERIAL EVIDENCE BY

STATE WOULD BE DENIAL OF FAIR TRIAL AND DUE PROCESS; SEE

PEOPLE v. McKOY,(Cal. App. 1st. Dist. JUNE 15, 1961) 193 Cal. App. 2d 104,

13 Cal. Rptr. 809. STRICKLAND v. WASHINGTON, 466 U.S. 668; 104 S. Ct.

2052; 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984). UNITED STATES v. AGURS, 427 U.S. 97, 103 ,

96 S.Ct. 2392, 49 L. Ed. 2d 342 (1976). THE PROSECUTIONS FAILURE TO

DISCLOSE MATERIAL EVIDENCE VIOLATED THE PETITIONER’S DUE

PROCESS RIGHTS BECAUSE THE NEWLY REVEALED EVIDENCE

SUFFICED TO UNDERMINE CONFIDENCE IN THE PETITIONER’S

CONVICTION, GIVEN THAT THE ONLY EVIDENCE DIRECTLY TYING THE

PETITIONER TO THE CRIME IS DETECTIVE RICHARD ARCINIEGAS,

STATEMENTS IN THE ARREST REPORT AND HIS TESTIMONY DURING

TRIAL AND PRE-TRIAL MATTERS.

D.THE SYSTEMIC DENIAL OF PETITIONER’S CLAIMS VIOLATES DUE

PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION AND WARRANTS VACATUR OF

JUDGMENT, PURSUANT TO PENAL CODE SECTION 1473.7(a)(1)(2).

5. THE PATTERN OF PROCEDURAL DENIALS, SUPPRESSION OF

EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE, AND FAILURE TO CONDUCT MEANINGFUL

REVIEWS OF NEWLY DISCOVERED MATERIAL AMOUNTS TO A VIOLATION

OF DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW.

STARTING OCTOBER 09, 2001, NOVEMBER 19 ,2002, DECEMBER 11, 2002,

JULY 04, 2003,( ON PAGES 5 AND 6,THIS PETITION WAS NOT RESPONDEDTO AS THE MINUTE ORDER SHOWS NO RESPONSE TO IT BUT THE

DENIAL BY THE COURT IS CLAIMED ON PAGE 9, OF THE MINUTE ORDER

OF EXHIBIT “A”.), JUNE 13, 2003, AUGUST 07, 2007,( THIS PETITION WAS

DENIED BASED ON THE COURT'S INTERPRETATION THAT THE

PETITIONER IS CHALLENGING HIS SENTENCE, WHEN THE PETITION IS

NOT, SEE EXHIBIT “D”),JULY 27, 2012, MARCH 28, 2013,(SEE EXHIBIT “K”)

JUNE 03, 2013, OCTOBER 30, 2013, APRIL 09, 2015, AUGUST 12, 2015,

SEPTEMBER 21, 2015, OCTOBER 19, 2015, JANUARY 23, 2020, MARCH 03,

2020, JANUARY 31, 2022, SEPTEMBER 03, 2021, AND OCTOBER 12, 2021,

PETITIONER HAS BEEN PRESENTING CREDIBLE CLAIMS BEFORE THE

COURT THAT SUPPORT THE VACATING OF THE JUDGMENT AGAINST

HIM.(SEE EXHIBIT “A”)

ON AUGUST 07, 2007, THE PETITIONER FILED A PETITION FOR WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS,(SEE EXHIBIT “D”), CALIFORNIA LAW DOES NOT HAVE A

SET STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR FILING A HABEAS CORPUS PETITION;

IN THAT PETITION, THE PETITIONER PRESENTED 19 GROUNDS FOR THE

COURTS CONSIDERATION, GROUND 1, WAS INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE

OF COUNSEL, FAILURE TO CHALLENGE BOOKING PHOTOGRAPH BEING

IN A NOVEMBER 18, 1997, PHOTOGRAPHIC LINEUP WHEN IT WAS

CREATED ON NOVEMBER 20, 1997. GROUND 3, WAS ABUSE OF THE

JUDGES DISCRETION, TRIAL JUDGE REFUSED TO TURN OVER

DISCOVERY, DURING PITCHESS HEARING, WHEN THERE WAS

EXCULPATORY MATERIAL EVIDENCE, TO BE DISCLOSED, GROUND 9,

ILLEGAL CONDUCT OF POLICE, WHERE DETECTIVE JERRY JOHNSON,

SUBMITTED A FABRICATED STATEMENT REPORT IN THE ARREST

REPORT, TO INDICATE PETITIONER MADE A CONFESSION, COUPLED

WITH THE WITHHELD EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE IN DETECTIVE RICHARD

ARCINIEGA’S FILE, THE ILLEGAL USE OF THE BOOKING PHOTOGRAPH IN

THE PHOTOGRAPHIC LINEUP WITH THE FALSE STATEMENT OF THE

IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURE ON NOVEMBER 20, 1997, EXHIBITS THAT

PETITIONER'S TRIAL WAS NOT FAIR AND IMPARTIAL, IN VIOLATION OF

PETITIONER’S DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION RIGHTS TO THE

CONSTITUTION AND WARRANTING A REVERSAL OF JUDGMENT. ON

AUGUST 24, 2007, THE COURT DENIED IT.(SEE EXHIBIT “A”, PAGE 5)

ON JUNE 03, 2003, THE PETITIONER FILED FOR POST- CONVICTION

RELIEF,

ON OCTOBER 16, 2013, THE PETITIONER FILED A REQUEST FOR

PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA PUBLIC

RECORDS ACT, GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 6253(c) , AND THE

PRIVACY ACT, 5 U.S.C. SECTION 552a(b)(1), REQUESTING THE SEARCHWARRANT AND PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST WARRANT, ISSUED ON

JULY 01,1996, AND THE PRELIMINARY HEARING TRANSCRIPTS.(SEE

EXHIBIT “E”) THE COURT DENIED THE REQUEST FOR UNKNOWN

REASONS ON OCTOBER 30,2013.(SEE EXHIBIT “A”, PAGE 8)

ON APRIL 09, 2015, THE PETITIONER FILED FOR THE PRODUCTION OF

DOCUMENTS,

ON AUGUST 12, 2015, THE PETITIONER FILED FOR PRODUCTION OF

DOCUMENTS,

ON SEPTEMBER 21, 2015, THE PETITIONER FILED FOR THE PRODUCTION

OF DOCUMENTS,

ON OCTOBER 08, 2015, THE PETITIONER FILED THE PETITION FOR WRIT

OF MANDATE, FOR THE PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, PURSUANT TO

PENAL CODE SECTION 6250-6276.48, OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC

RECORDS ACT, TITLE 5 - GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION AND

EMPLOYEES, SECTION 552a, THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 5

U.S.C. SECTION 552, AND THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 1,

SECTION 3, SUBDIVISION (b) AND (1).(SEE EXHIBIT “H”.)

THE COURT DID NOT CONSIDER ANY OF THE PETITIONER’S CLAIMS AS

CREDIBLE ENOUGH TO WARRANT AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING EVEN

GIVEN THE FACT THAT PETITIONER SUBMITTED EVIDENCE SUPPORTED

BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT THAT WARRANTS AN EVIDENTIARY

HEARING AND THE VACATING OF THE JUDGMENT.

E. VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS (FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT)

WARRANTS VACATUR OF JUDGMENT

6. THE DUE PROCESS VIOLATIONS CAN BE SEEN IN THE FABRICATED

WARRANT NUMBER IN THE ARREST REPORT, THE ARREST OF

PETITIONER ON JULY 03, 1996, UNDER THE FALSE BASIS OF A WARRANT,

THE FILING OF THE FALSE STATEMENTS IN THE ARREST REPORT

CONSTRUCTED BY THEN OFFICER RICHARD ARCINIEGA, AND

DETECTIVE JERRY JOHNSON, ON NOVEMBER 20, 1997,

MISREPRESENTING THE BOOKING PHOTOGRAPH AS THE PHOTOGRAPH

THE VICTIM IDENTIFIED ON NOVEMBER 18, 1997, WHEN THE

PHOTOGRAPH WAS CREATED ON NOVEMBER 20,1997, AFTER THE

PETITIONER’S ARREST, MANIPULATING THE FINGERPRINT EVIDENCE,

AND THE DENIAL OF EXCULPATORY MATERIAL EVIDENCE BY THE COURT

AND THE PROSECUTION, IS A COMPLETE DENIAL OF PETITIONER'S DUE

PROCESS AND WARRANTS VACATING THE JUDGMENT. UNDER BRADY v.

MARYLAND, 373 U.S. 83,(1963), THE PROSECUTION IS OBLIGATED TO

DISCLOSE ALL MATERIAL EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE TO THE DEFENCE.

HERE, THE COURT’S REFUSAL TO COMPEL DISCOVERY UNDER PENALCODE SECTION 1054.9, AND ITS FAILURE TO INVESTIGATE THE

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, CONFIRMATION THAT NO WARRANT EXISTED

FOR THE JULY 03, 1996, ARREST, CONSTITUTES VIOLATIONS OF BRADY

AND REQUIRE VACATUR OF JUDGMENT.

7. THE USE OF FALSE AND MISLEADING EVIDENCE IN THE PETITIONER’S

ARREST AND PROSECUTION FURTHER VIOLATES DUE PROCESS UNDER

NAPUE v. ILLINOIS, 360 U.S. 264 (1959), WHICH HOLDS THAT A

CONVICTION OBTAINED THROUGH FALSE TESTIMONY MUST BE

OVERTURNED.

F. VIOLATION OF EQUAL PROTECTION(FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT)

WARRANT VACATUR OF JUDGMENT.

8. THE SYSTEMIC REFUSAL TO GRANT PETITIONER ACCESS TO PUBLIC

RECORDS, DESPITE ALLOWING SIMILARLY SITUATED DEFENDANTS

ACCESS TO DISCOVERY UNDER PENAL CODE SECTION 1054.9,

CONSTITUTES A VIOLATION OF EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE

FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.

9. IN SCHLUP v. DELO, 513 U.S. 298 (1995), THE U.S. SUPREME COURT

RULED THAT PROCEDURAL BARS MUST GIVE WAY WHEN NEW EVIDENCE

DEMONSTRATES A CLEAR MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE. THE TRIAL

COURT’S REFUSAL TO ACKNOWLEDGE NEW EVIDENCE OF POLICE

MISCONDUCT AND PERJURY EFFECTIVELY PREVENTS A FAIR

ADJUDICATION OF THE PETITIONER’S CLAIMS, FURTHER VIOLATING

EQUAL PROTECTION PRINCIPLES.

4.THE COURT’S FAILURE TO INVESTIGATE THE PETITIONER’S

CLAIMS HAS RESULTED IN A MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE.

10. THE TRIAL COURT’S REPEATED RELIANCE ON PROCEDURAL

DENIALS, RATHER THAN CONDUCTING AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING,

DEMONSTRATES A DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE TO ENSURING JUSTICE

IN THIS CASE.

11. PENAL CODE SECTION 1473.7(a)(1) AND (2) SPECIFICALLY PROVIDE

FOR THE VACATUR OF A JUDGMENT WHEN:

●

PREJUDICIAL ERROR DAMAGED THE DEFENDANT’S ABILITY TO

MEANINGFULLY DEFEND AGAINST THE CONVICTION, OR

●

FALSE OR MISLEADING EVIDENCE WAS USED TO OBTAIN THE

CONVICTION.(PENAL CODE SECTION 115(a)(b) AND (d).

12. GIVEN THAT:

●

DETECTIVE RICHARD ARCINIEGA, WAS THE SOLE LINK

CONNECTING PETITIONER TO THE CRIMES, WHO’S TESTIMONY

ABOUT THE PETITIONER LEADING THE POLICE TO STOLEN

PROPERTY WAS REQUESTED BY THE JURY FOR A READ BACK,●

●

BEFORE FINDING THE PETITIONER GUILTY; HAD THEY KNOWN OF

THE OFFICER’S PROPENSITY TO TESTIFY FALSELY THE OUT COME

THE PROCEEDINGS WOULD HAVE EXONERATED THE PETITIONER

OF THE CRIMES, DUE TO THE FACT THAT IT WAS OFFICER

ARCINIEGA, WHO REPORTEDLY RECEIVED A PHONE CALL ON

NOVEMBER 18, 1997, INFORMING HIM THAT THE PETITIONER HAS

STOLEN PROPERTY IN HIS RESIDENCE, LINKING THE PETITIONER

TO THE CRIME. AS IS REPORTED IN THE POLICE REPORT. (SEE

EXHIBIT “A”, PAGE 19)

THE FEDERAL COURT FOUND DETECTIVE ARCINIEGA, ENGAGED

IN PERJURY, WITNESS TAMPERING, AND EVIDENCE FABRICATION,

WITH THE COURT IN PETITIONER’S CASE KNOWINGLY

WITHHOLDING MATERIAL EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE, WHICH IS

PROVEN WITH THE DENIAL OF PETITIONER’S JANUARY 16, 2020,

MOTION TO VACATE CONVICTION, CHALLENGING THE DENIAL OF

THE 1998, PITCHESS HEARING, THE COURTS CLAIM OF THERE

BEING NO DISCOVERABLE MATERIAL. IN THAT MINUTE ORDER THE

HONORABLE JUDGE LARRY P. FIDLER, TESTIFIED FALSELY

STATING : “THE COURT DID NOT MAKE AVAILABLE TO THE

PETITIONER DISCOVERABLE “PITCHESS” MATERIALS. THIS CLAIM

IS BASED ON A FINDING IN A 2016 FEDERAL CASE THAT SUCH

MATERIALS EXISTED AFTER PETITIONER’S TRIAL”, (SEE EXHIBIT

“L”), WHEN THE FEDERAL COURT STATED IN ALEXIS GARCIA v.

JEFF MACOMBER, THAT : “THE COURT REVIEWED DETECTIVE

ARCINIEGA’S PERSONNEL RECORDS ON JANUARY 09, 2009. IT

FOUND EIGHT PERTINENT COMPLAINTS HAD BEEN MADE AGAINST

HIM BETWEEN 1997 AND 2006 FOR FILING FALSE POLICE

REPORTS, GIVING FALSE TESTIMONY, TAMPERING WITH

PHOTOGRAPHIC IDENTIFICATION LINEUPS, AND COERCING

CONFESSIONS”. WITH THE PETITIONER’S CO-DEFENDANT AS ONE

OF THE COMPLAINANTS. MARCH 03, 2020, APPLICATION FOR

CERTIFICATE OF PROBABLE CAUSE, (SEE EXHIBIT “M”), JULY 28,

2020, PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE (SEE EXHIBIT “F”), THE

MARCH 29, 2022, WRIT OF CORAM NOBIS, (SEE EXHIBIT “N”).

THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, CONFIRMED THAT NO WARRANT

EXISTED FOR PETITIONER’S JULY 03, 1996, ARREST, ON OCTOBER

17, 2023, AND THAT THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT,

NEVER REPORTED THE JULY 03, 1996, ARREST OF PETITIONER AS

BEING MADE PURSUANT TO A WARRANT, THE DENIAL OF ACCESS

TO DISCOVERY, PROCEDURAL DISMISSALS, AND REFUSAL TOINVESTIGATE NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE HAVE RESULTED IN

A PROFOUND MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE, NECESSITATING

VACATUR OF THE JUDGMENT.(SEE In re CLARK,(1993) 5 Cal. 4th 750,

“SUCCESSIVE PETITIONS MAY BE BARRED UNLESS THE

PETITIONER PRESENTS NEW EVIDENCE OR DEMONSTRATES A

FUNDAMENTAL MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE.” HERE, THE

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, FINDINGS, THE FALSIFIED ARREST

REPORTS, THE BOOKING PHOTOGRAPHS SUGGESTIVE

CONFIDENTIALITY WITH ITS ILLEGAL USE IN A SIX-PACK LINEUP,

THE INVALID WARRANT NUMBER COUPLED WITH THE FALSIFIED

CLAIM OF THE PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST WARRANT AND

SEARCH WARRANTS DESTRUCTION (SEE EXHIBIT “G”, AND THE

LACK OF THE WARRANTS NOT BEING CATALOGUED.), ALONG WITH

THE WILLFUL WITHHOLDING OF MATERIAL EXCULPATORY

EVIDENCE, BY THE COURT AND THE PROSECUTION AS IS PROVEN

IN ALEXIS GARCIA v. JEFF MACOMBER, 2016 U.S. Dist. Lexis 94065,

PROVIDE SUBSTANTIAL NEW EVIDENCE THAT WAS NOT AVAILABLE

AT THE TIME OF EARLIER PETITIONS AND DIRECTLY REFUTES THE

LEGALITY OF THE PETITIONER’S ARREST AND CONVICTIONS, DUE

TO THE VIOLATIONS OF DUE PROCESS AND THE FUNDAMENTAL

FAIRNESS REQUIREMENT AND EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW

UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.

5. CONCLUSION

THE SYSTEMIC DENIAL OF PETITIONER’S CLAIMS–THROUGH REPEATED

PROCEDURAL DISMISSALS, SUPPRESSION OF EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE, AND

REFUSAL TO INVESTIGATE NEWLY DISCOVERED MATERIAL EVIDENCE–

DEMONSTRATES A FUNDAMENTAL BREAKDOWN OF DUE PROCESS. GIVEN THE

NEW EVIDENCE OF POLICE MISCONDUCT, FALSE TESTIMONY, AND

FABRICATED REPORTS, AS THE EXHIBITS PROVE THE CONTINUED REFUSAL

TO CONDUCT AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING PERPETUATED A MISCARRIAGE OF

JUSTICE.(SEE CALIFORNIA RULES OF COURT, RUE 4.551(c)(1), PEOPLE v,

MURILLO, 2021 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 6708 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. Oct. 25, 2021) : “IF

THE MOVING PARTY MAKES A PRIMA FACIE CASE FOR RELIEF, THE JUDGE

MUST ISSUE AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. IN DETERMINING WHETHER A PRIMA

FACIE CASE HAS BEEN MADE, THE JUDGE MUST TAKE THE MOVING PARTY’S

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS AS TRUE AND MAKE A PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT

WHETHER THE MOVING PARTY WOULD BE ENTITLED TO RELIEF IF HIS OR HER

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS WERE PROVEN”.)

ACCORDINGLY, THE PETITIONER RESPECTFULLY REQUESTS THAT THIS

HONORABLE COURT:1. 2. 3. 4. ORDER AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING TO INVESTIGATE THE CLAIMS

PRESENTED IN THIS MOTION,

COMPEL THE PRODUCTION OF ALL RECORDS RELATED TO DETECTIVE

ARCINIEGA’S MISCONDUCT, INCLUDING PERSONNEL RECORDS,

INTERNAL AFFAIRS COMPLAINTS, AND FEDERAL INVESTIGATIVE

FINDINGS,

ORDER THE TRANSCRIPTS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING HELD

WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, ON OCTOBER 17, 2023, IN

SUPPORT OF THE INVALID WARRANT NUMBER AND THE LOS ANGELES

POLICE DEPARTMENT'S FAILURE TO CATALOG THE JULY 03, 1996,

ARREST AS BEING MADE PURSUANT TO A WARRANT, PRESENTED IN

THIS MOTION, AND

VACATE THE JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE PURSUANT TO PENAL CODE

SECTION 1473.7(a)(1) AND (2), DUE TO THE DUE PROCESS, FOURTH AND

FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS SUFFERED

BY THE PETITIONER, THAT RESULTED IN A FUNDAMENTAL MISCARRIAGE

OF JUSTICE.

DATE:

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

—-------------------------------------------

DARRION LARRY ALEXANDER