CALIFORNIA JUDGES AND PROSECUTORS CONSPIRE TO SWITCH COURT RECORDS SO THEY COULD IMPOSE A LIFE SENTENCE UNDER THREE STRIKES LAW, WHEN THEY COULD ONLY HAVE IMPOSED A 3 YEAR SENTENCE WITHOUT CONSPIRING................................................................................................................................................... In 1996, I was charged with second degree robbery. It was further alleged in the information (the charging document) that, on March 24, 1993, I suffered two prior serious or violent felonies within the meaning of California's THREE STRIKES law.
In an effort of avoiding the mandatory life sentence under California's THREE STRIKES law, I moved to vacate (set aside) the two prior guilty plea(s) that I had entered. The motion to vacate was on the ground (legal basis) that the plea agreement which the State used to induce me to plead guilty had been breached by the State. I alleged (factual basis) in the motion that I had entered the guilty plea(s) in exchange for a four year suspended sentence and commitment to a drug addiction treatment center, and the State breached the agreement by instead sending me to prison for 4 years.
If my allegations were proven to be true by looking at the court record of The Plea hearing, then, under the law, the two prior guilty plea(s) were to be vacated (set aside) in the state cannot rely on them to impose a 25-year to life sentence under California's three-strikes law. The middle term (average sentence) for second-degree robbery is 3 years, so I could have only been sentenced to three years in prison.
However to avoid vacating the prior guilty plea(s) so that a mandatory life sentence could be based on them under the three strikes law the trial court judge and the prosecutor conspired to switch the March 24, 1993 plea hearing record with the March 29, 1993 sentencing hearing record. By doing so, they made it appear as though the four years I spent in prison for the prior guilty plea(s) was part of the plea agreement, and thus, that the plea agreement had not been breached.
This allowed the Trial Court Judge to deny my motion to vacate the two prior guilty plea(s), and subsequently to rely on them to impose a mandatory 25 year to life sentence for the 1996 second degree robbery under th THREE STRIKES law.
To affirm the trial court's denial of the motion to vacate the two prior guilty plea(s), and thereby, maintain the 25 year to life sentence predicated on the two prior guilty plea(s), the appellate court justices conspired with the deputy attorney general to switch the March 24, 1993 plea hearing record with the March 29, 1993 sentencing hearing record. By doing so, they made it appear that at the time I entered my guilty plea(s), I was fully aware I would have to serve a four year sentence if the drug addiction treatment center rejected me, and thus, that I had failed to satisfy the requirements for vacating the guilty plea(s).
In response to my claim that the prosecutor and the deputy Attorney General deceived the trial and appellate courts, respectively, to believe in that I had entered the two guilty plea(s) on March 29, 1993, instead of March 24, 1993, the presiding Justice of the Appellate Court found that the police were indeed entered on March 24th, 1993 in exchange for a 4 year suspended sentence and commitment to a drug treatment center, that sentencing occured five days later on March 29th, 1993. But attributed the court's contrary findings in it's opinion to judicial error, which does not justify recalling the Court's judgment.
So, my life sentence under California's three-strikes law is based on the lie, which does not justify recalling the Court's judgment to correct it. 20 years of my life is gone when I should have only been in prison for a maximum of three years.
And now I find out that I'm not even guilty of robbery, that the facts of my case constitutes the crime of "extortion", which is a misdemeanor under Proposition 47. But I can't get any relief, because to give me relief on being innocent of robbery would open the door to the judicial and prosecutorial misconduct described above being scrutinized. As long as my erroneus robbery conviction stays in place no one will look at the misconduct that caused it because they assume that I have had the review process that I was entitled to... When it was the review process that I was entitled to which engaged in the misconduct.
Any questions regarding this petition can be addressed to my brother:
Raymond Keith Reviere #J10293
Los Angeles state prison
Lancaster, CA 93539