People v. Ruiz; In re Ruiz

Summary

The California Court of Appeal considered Edgar Ruiz’s appeal and related habeas corpus petition challenging the effectiveness of counsel during a resentencing hearing. The court held that counsel’s total inaction constituted a complete denial of the assistance of counsel under United States v. Cronic and Bell v. Cone, requiring no separate showing of prejudice. Habeas relief was granted, the matter was remanded for a new resentencing hearing, and the appeal was dismissed as moot.

Holdings

1. The Cronic exception permitting prejudice to be presumed when counsel entirely fails to subject the prosecution's case to meaningful adversarial testing remains valid and has not been overruled by People v. Banks or People v. Brown.
2. Counsel's total inaction before, during, and after Ruiz's resentencing hearing constituted a complete absence of the assistance of counsel and a complete failure to subject the sentencing proceeding to meaningful adversarial testing.
3. Because Ruiz established a complete denial of counsel at a critical resentencing proceeding, prejudice is presumed and he need not demonstrate a reasonable probability of a more favorable result under Strickland.
4. Ruiz is entitled to habeas relief, and the matter must be remanded for a new resentencing hearing; the related appeal is dismissed as moot.

Questions Presented

1. Whether counsel's total inaction before, during, and after Ruiz's resentencing hearing constituted a complete denial of counsel under United States v. Cronic and Bell v. Cone.
2. Whether the complete-denial-of-counsel exception to Strickland remained valid.
3. Whether Ruiz was entitled to habeas relief without showing prejudice.
4. Whether the related direct appeal should be dismissed as moot after habeas relief was granted.

Disposition

remanded