In re Hampton
Annotate this Case
Jonathan Hampton was convicted by jury of second degree murder for shooting and killing Jonathan Giurbino. After an initial round of state and federal habeas corpus litigation resulted in denial of his petitions, Hampton initiated a second round of state habeas corpus litigation in 2014. Hampton asserted for the first time: (1) the trial court prejudicially erred and violated his federal constitutional rights by failing to instruct the jury, sua sponte, with CALCRIM No. 570 on heat of passion voluntary manslaughter; (2) his trial counsel provided constitutionally deficient assistance in failing to request such an instruction; and (3) his appellate counsel provided constitutionally deficient assistance in failing to assert this instructional error claim in his direct appeal. According to Hampton, he was unaware of his entitlement to a heat of passion instruction until July 2014, when another inmate handed him a copy of the First Appellate District’s decision in California v. Thomas, 218 Cal.App.4th 630 (2013), holding on facts similar to the facts of this case that the trial court’s denial of the defendant’s request for a heat of passion instruction amounted to federal constitutional error and required reversal. The trial court granted the petition, concluding the original trial court prejudicially erred in failing to instruct the jury with CALCRIM No. 570, and further concluding the "Thomas" decision amounted to a change in the law entitling Hampton to raise the instructional error claim in his habeas corpus petition despite having failed to do so on appeal. The State appealed; the Court of Appeal reversed, finding the trial court erred in determining there was an intervening change of law. The matter was remanded to the trial court for a determination regarding his remaining claims of ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC). On remand, the trial court denied the habeas corpus petition as untimely.
In this habeas petition (filed 2018), Hampton reasserted his IAC claims. The Court of Appeal summarily denied the petition. The California Supreme Court granted review and transferred the matter back to the Court of Appeal with directions to vacate its order denying the petition and to issue an order to show cause as to why Hampton was not entitled to relief on his claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel (IAAC). Having done so, and having reviewed the return to the order to show cause, as well as Hampton’s traverse thereto, the Court of Appeal granted the petition, vacated the judgment of conviction, and remanded the matter to the Sacramento County Superior Court for further proceedings.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.