Carmona Suit Blames Attorney for Conviction

A Costa Mesa teenager who spent 2 1/2 years in prison on a robbery conviction that a judge threw out in August filed a claim for damages Friday, blaming his conviction on a defense lawyer he said was appointed by the Orange County public defender’s office.

Orange County Public Defender Carl Holmes said the claim was filed in error because Arthur Carmona was defended at trial by a private lawyer appointed by a Superior Court judge.

The claim, a precursor to a lawsuit, was the first of three that Carmona’s current attorneys say they plan to file in the case. They have said they also intend to seek damages from police departments that investigated the robberies of which Carmona was convicted.

Carmona was a Costa Mesa High School sophomore when he was arrested in February 1998--a week after his 16th birthday--in connection with two robberies, two days apart, in Costa Mesa and Irvine. He was convicted almost solely on eyewitness accounts.

The shakiness of those accounts and other issues formed the basis of an appeal that began in early 1999. In August, the district attorney’s office said it would not oppose the appeal, prompting Superior Court Judge Everett W. Dickey to overturn the conviction.

Carmona’s lawyers said Friday they will challenge a waiver Carmona signed before his release in August. The waiver indicated that Carmona believed his conviction was not a result of misconduct by either police agency.

“The courts have uniformly held those things are meaningless,” lawyer Gregory Patton said. “They’re not enforceable because any reasonable person will say what it takes to get out of jail.”

In their claim, attorneys contend that defense attorney Kenneth Reed made several significant mistakes, including failure to fight the admission of eyewitness testimony they say was tainted by police.

Reed has defended his trial strategy, saying he vigorously attacked the testimony during cross-examination. Carmona’s lawyers say he should not have allowed it to be raised at all.

Holmes said the public defender’s office has no liability in the case. Reed was not a deputy public defender; the public defender’s office had no role in Reed’s appointment, he said.