{"id":294,"date":"2026-02-19T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-02-19T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=294"},"modified":"2026-02-19T12:00:00","modified_gmt":"2026-02-19T12:00:00","slug":"in-re-lynex-b344569-racial-justice-act-appointment-counsel-plausible-allegation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=294","title":{"rendered":"In re Lynex \u2014 Racial Justice Act Petitioner Entitled to Counsel on a ‘Plausible Allegation’ Standard, Not a Prima Facie Showing"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
Case<\/dt>\n
In re Lynex<\/dd>\n
Court<\/dt>\n
2nd District Court of Appeal, Division One<\/dd>\n
Date Decided<\/dt>\n
2026-02-19<\/dd>\n
Docket No.<\/dt>\n
B344569<\/dd>\n
Status<\/dt>\n
Reported \/ Citable<\/dd>\n
Topics<\/dt>\n
Racial Justice Act, Penal Code section 745, Habeas Corpus, Appointment of Counsel, Successive Petitions<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/div>\n

Background<\/h2>\n

Tommie Lawson Lynex was convicted in 2000 of first-degree murder with a Penal Code section 12022.53(d) firearm enhancement and sentenced to 50 years to life. In 2025, Lynex filed a petition for habeas corpus under California’s Racial Justice Act of 2020 (Penal Code section 745), claiming as an African American man that the firearm enhancement was sought and obtained based on race. He attached a chart from the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office showing the racial and ethnic makeup of defendants charged with murder plus the firearm enhancement in 1998-2000, indicating disproportionate charging of Black defendants. Lynex sought appointment of counsel.<\/p>\n

The trial court denied the petition in its entirety, ruling among other things that Lynex had failed to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to relief and citing the prohibition on successive habeas petitions. Lynex filed a writ petition.<\/p>\n

The Court’s Holding<\/h2>\n

The Court of Appeal granted writ of mandate, construing Lynex’s habeas petition as a writ of mandate. The court identified three separate errors.<\/p>\n

First, the trial court applied the wrong standard for appointing counsel. The Racial Justice Act requires habeas petitioners seeking counsel to plead a ‘plausible allegation’ of a violation \u2014 a far lower threshold than the prima facie showing the trial court demanded. The plausible-allegation standard is intentionally accessible because petitioners often need counsel to develop the complex statistical and contextual evidence the Act invites.<\/p>\n

Second, even if Lynex’s petition did not yet state a plausible allegation, the trial court was unaware of its discretion to grant leave to amend. The Racial Justice Act and habeas-procedure rules permit amendment to allow petitioners (often pro per) to develop their claims with input from counsel.<\/p>\n

Third, the trial court erred in invoking the prohibition on successive habeas petitions at this stage. Procedural bars to relief are addressed later in the proceedings, not at the initial appointment-of-counsel stage.<\/p>\n

The court directed the trial court to assess on remand whether Lynex’s petition states a plausible claim, and if not, to consider whether to grant leave to amend.<\/p>\n

Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n