Lawyers for Carmona Ask Court to Overturn Conviction

Attorneys for a Costa Mesa teenager sentenced to 12 years in prison in a controversial robbery case filed an appeal Monday arguing that the boy’s first lawyer failed to interview several witnesses who could have provided solid alibis.

Arthur Carmona, 17, is being held at a California Youth Authority facility in Ione, near Sacramento. He is expected to be transferred to an adult prison within weeks when he turns 18.

Carmona, who had no criminal record, was arrested nearly two years ago and charged with the robbery of an Irvine juice bar and also for the robbery of a Costa Mesa restaurant two days before the Irvine incident. He was later convicted of both crimes at a single trial.

Since his conviction, two jurors and a key witness in the case have publicly expressed doubts about Carmona’s guilt. His cause has drawn attention from many community leaders who believe he is innocent and that he was prosecuted on faulty evidence.

“Arthur has already served two years for a crime he didn’t commit,” said Jim Harris, a partner in the Los Angeles law firm of Sidley & Austin, which is handling the appeal. “It is an injustice that should be speedily corrected.”

The 4th District Court of Appeal in Santa Ana is expected to hear the case within six months.

Tori Richards, a spokeswoman for the Orange County district attorney’s office, said Monday that Carmona “got a fair trial and the jury properly convicted him. . . . This matter is now in the hands of the Court of Appeal, and we will see what happens.”

Richards pointed out that the judge in the case, Superior Court Judge Everett W. Dickey, turned down a motion for a new trial in June after hearing arguments similar to those in Carmona’s appeal.

The appeal is highly critical of Kenneth Reed, Carmona’s court-appointed lawyer for his first trial.

“There were at least 10 witnesses who could have supported Arthur’s alibi that he was nowhere near the scene when the true robber was casing” the juice bar, the appeal documents state. “Nevertheless by the time trial began, [Reed] had spoken with, at most, only one or two of these witnesses.”

One of those, a former girlfriend of Carmona, said she saw him at his house around the same time other witnesses say they saw the robber studying the juice bar. Janett Cortes, the girlfriend, said she was never interviewed or asked to testify.

The appeal attorneys also fault Reed for failing to suppress evidence they said was questionable. Costa Mesa police arrested Carmona within hours of the juice bar robbery and brought in witnesses to identify the teenager. At one point officers placed a hat believed to have been worn by the robber on Carmona’s head, even though the hat was found in the getaway car and not on Carmona.

“Police gave the witnesses a nudge” by placing the hat on Carmona’s head, Monday’s documents state. The appeal also faults Carmona’s lawyer for not calling expert witnesses who could have testified that eyewitness identifications of crime suspects often are inaccurate.

Two witnesses who testified against Carmona said they were sure he was the robber only after seeing him with the hat.

The appeal argues that Reed’s “ineffective counsel” coupled with other factors are grounds for a reversal of the conviction or a new trial.

Reed could not be reached for comment Monday. In a declaration filed with the appeal, however, he defends his performance.

“I recognize that some of the decisions that I have made in this case are the subject of question to a later observer,” he said. “I made these decisions in the heat of trial.”

Casey Becerra, a Costa Mesa restaurant worker who identified Carmona as the robber, has publicly expressed doubts about her testimony and even wrote a letter to the young man in jail apologizing for her role. She said authorities influenced her by telling her that they had found the gun, backpack and hat Carmona used in the robberies. In fact, no physical evidence ever linked Carmona to the crimes. Investigators and the prosecutor in the case have denied that witnesses were unduly influenced.

Two jurors have also said they felt pressured to vote for conviction by others panelists despite their reservations. One juror, Sandra Dinardo, alleges in Monday’s appeal documents that jurors discussed the case outside the jury room against the judge’s orders. If jury misconduct were established, it also could be a basis for seeking a new trial.