Can a defendant bring a motion for habeas corpus against the District Attorney for allegedly delaying charging and bringing him before a magistrate for a charge of first degree murder?

murder was not filed until May 17. Insofar as defendant claims that his extradition to California was therefore illegal, he waived the objection by consenting to the extradition.⁶ Insofar as he is contending that the delay in charging and bringing him before a magistrate violated section 825,⁷ he has shown no resulting prejudice and therefore is entitled to no relief at this time. " 'A violation of a defendant's right to be taken before a magistrate within the time specified by the law does not require a reversal unless he shows that through such wrongful conduct he was deprived of a fair trial or otherwise suffered prejudice as a result thereof.' " (People v. Valenzuela (1978) 86 Cal.App.3d 427, 431; see also, e.g., People v. Boyden (1953) 116 Cal.App.2d 278, 286.)

Defendant makes a variety of arguments that should properly have been raised on appeal. He asserts that the evidence presented at trial does not support a conviction of first degree murder. "[R]outine claims that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient are not cognizable in a habeas corpus petition." (In re Reno (2012) 55 Cal.4th 428, 506.) He argues that the prosecutor presented testimony from eye witnesses and experts that was false and that the prosecutor fabricated his argument to the court and jury using deceptive practices. In addition to other reasons for which this claim lacks merit, defendant failed to raise these objections at trial. "To preserve . . . a claim [of prosecutorial misconduct] on appeal, 'a criminal defendant must make a timely and specific objection and ask the trial court to admonish the jury to disregard the impropriety.' " (People v. Clark (2011) 52 Cal.4th 856, 960.) Defendant also contends that the trial court erroneously failed to strike the five-year enhancement based on his 2002 robbery conviction because the present crime occurred after expiration of the "washout" period in section 667.5, subdivision (b). However, the five-year enhancement

Page 11

was imposed under section 667, subdivisions (a)(1), to which the washout period does not apply.

Defendant asserts that the reason the district attorney brought this case against him was vindictive, that the prosecutor did so because he had been disqualified from handling the 2002 robbery prosecution of defendant. Other deficiencies in this claim aside, a claim for discriminatory or vindictive prosecution must be raised in a pretrial motion to dismiss and not after trial and conviction. (People v. Edwards (1991) 54 Cal.3d 787, 827.)