After the California Supreme Court issued an order to show cause ( In re Jacinto Valdovinos Ca. Supreme #S221202) and returned the inmates case to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing in a pending writ of habeas corpus, the trial court judge Bradley L. Boeckman denied the inmates ineffective assistance of counsel claim on the ground that the inmates former attorney, Max Ruffcorn, was a credible witness. Max Ruffcorn and the inmate, Jacinto Jose Valdovinos, testified at the evidentiary hearing. The petitioner, Valdovinos, testified that his former attorney, Ruffcorn, advised him to reject a plea bargain of 16 years based upon and error of law and a false assumption that the only witness in the case would not be allowed to testify. Ruffcorn testified differently that he never advised petitioner to reject any plea bargain and has never done that with any clients ever.(note: after the denial, the petitioner found an unpublished case law involving Max Ruffcorn that showed Ruffcorn had advised a client to take an 8 year plea deal with a past client, directly contradicting his evidentiary hearing testimony. This fact was raised in the new petition to the Court of Appeal) During the evidentiary hearing, Max Ruffcorn testified contradictory and in some instances purposely lying under oath on numerous occasions. Judge Boeckman of the Shasta County Superior Court observed these instances of false testimony but did nothing and ruled that the attorney was credible and that the pro per petitioner was not credible. In essence, the judge denied the claim and petitioners life sentence was allowed to stand. Petitioner then reraised the claim in the California Court of Appeal on August 14, 2018. He attached a copy of the evidentiary hearing transcript to the writ petition showing the false testimony of his former attorney. On November 19, 2018 the petition was summarily denied by Justice Coleman Blease. It is interesting to note that Justice Blease has been implicated in a corruption scandal in which he along with other judges routinely deny claims in the court of appeal covering up trial court judges and attorneys misconduct in the lower court. Here is another instance of corruption. (See Court of appeal, Third appellate district case #C087746) One may think the claim did not have merit, but if that was the case, the California Supreme Court would not have issued an order to show cause. Justice Blease is again attempting to cover up lower court misconduct.
Yuri Vanetik is a seriously dangerous asset manager who has been targeting folks from California and scamming them. Yuri misrepresented
This company doesn’t ever provide leads. They take your money and your credit card info and NEVER send leads. They will continue to charge
The staff is the worst part of this place. They are dirty, rude and just straight up gross. White chick with dark hair was literally
All my issues were solved, but they tried charging me more than what I had expected. They said it would be about 125 an hour and that it
I can’t believe you all are still in business with the shady dealings you all have going on. Paid for expedited shipping, received the
We ordered $375. worth of products and never received nothing, they kept the money and no response from them. Totally disappointed and
I sent $409 for an upper. He said he could only use Zelle. Well that was the same as sending cash. No response to any emails (lots of
This company does not allow you to register or use the prepaid card from Anthem I have tried numerous times to activate this card on their
This complaint and/or review was posted on Defaulters.com on 01:43 am, August 12, 2020 (CST) and is a permanent record located at: https://www.defaulters.com/scam/california-court-of-appeal-third-district/.
The reviews & complaints posted about California Court of Appeal, Third District was submitted by a member or guest on this website. Any and all opinions and information are published as is. Defaulters.com does not edit or remove any aspect of the report and is simply a consumer grievance free-speech platform. As such, Defaulters.com cannot be held liable for the complaints and reviews posted about California Court of Appeal, Third District as per Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.