Possibly, but Penal Code section 1473.6 is a narrow motion to vacate a judgment for newly discovered evidence of specified misconduct by a government official. The person must no longer be unlawfully imprisoned or restrained on the judgment, and the evidence must be something that could not have been discovered with reasonable diligence before judgment. A completed sentence or news that an officer acted improperly in another case is not enough by itself. Penal Code section 1473.6.

The three statutory grounds are different

The motion must fit one of these routes:

  • Official fraud: newly discovered evidence of fraud by a government official that completely undermines the prosecution’s case, is conclusive, and points unerringly to innocence.
  • False trial testimony: newly discovered evidence that a government official testified falsely at the trial resulting in the conviction, and that testimony was substantially probative of guilt or punishment.
  • Fabricated evidence: newly discovered evidence that a government official committed misconduct in the underlying case that resulted in fabrication of evidence substantially material and probative on guilt or punishment. Misconduct in other cases is not sufficient for this ground.

A general credibility concern, a recantation, or proof of official misconduct elsewhere does not automatically satisfy one of these specific tests. The new evidence must connect the official’s conduct to the person’s own judgment and the applicable statutory ground. Penal Code section 1473.6.

Track when the evidence could be found

“Newly discovered” means the evidence could not have been discovered with reasonable diligence before judgment. The motion must be filed within one year of the later of: when the person discovered, or could have discovered with due diligence, additional evidence of official misconduct or fraud beyond the person’s own knowledge; or the statute’s effective date. This is a deadline for this section 1473.6 motion, not a universal one-year limit for California habeas cases. The statute uses the procedures and burdens for a habeas corpus writ. Penal Code section 1473.6.

In People v. Germany, the court rejected a claim based on facts already known before judgment and misconduct in other cases that did not show fabrication in the underlying case. The decision illustrates why the evidence, official, case connection, and discovery timeline must be identified precisely. People v. Germany.

Preserve the judgment, custody or restraint records, trial materials, original evidence, and a dated account of when and how the new information was found. The Law Offices of David S. Chesley handles California postconviction matters. Call (800) 755-5174 to review whether the evidence fits a statutory ground.