The more I read the statute, the more confused I become and maybe I’m just really wrong but...
Re Bedrossian:
I can’t see anything that says you have to wait until the statute of limitations has expired prior to filing for relief. I don’t see the basis for the denial by the judge originally denying relief and I don’t see the basis for Bedrossian appeal. I find it hard to believe the original and appeals court got something so wrong so I must be missing something.....but what?
The only mention of the pertinent statute of limitations is in reference to the time allowed if the initial petition is not responded to. It states that if the petition is not responded to within 60 days after the pertinent statute of limitations has expired or within 60 days in cases where the statute of limitations has already expired the petition is deemed to have been denied.
That is merely stating that if a petition is not responded to within those time frames it is considered denied under the law. It does not say a petition is premature if filed before the pertinent sol has expired. It suggests if they don’t respond to the initial filing and the pertinent sol has not expired, the petition is not deemed denied until 60 days after the sol has expired, that sets up some very odd situations but since your application was denied, it is irrelevant. . Where the sol is quite long (5 years as an example) if the police or prosecutor did not respond to the initial petition, the petitioner would have to wait 5 years and 60 days after the arrest for the petition to be deemed denied. That is an odd requirement especially since if the petition is responded to and denied, that section doesn’t apply and one can immediately proceed to the next available action and file for a hearing before the court.
since your petition was formally denied, that doesn’t apply. Furthermore, it states any petition that has been denied can be furthered by petitioning the court for a hearing. I don’t see where the sol (statute of limitations) prohibits you from filing with the court and I don’t see where the lack of the sol expiring is a basis to deny your petition, regardless what Bedrossian states.
Furthermore, when considering section l (L), it actually says you have only two years after the action of the arrest or filing of charges to actually apply for relief. It allows this limit to be waived upon presentation of good cause.
so, the law says you have only two years to file for relief without having to prove why you delayed the petition. This shows the law does not Want one to wait until the sol has run on the original charge considered. The state has placed an urgency on filing a petition for relief to as soon as possible by applying this 2 year limit.
Several other sections of the law also allow for immediate request for relief. Section (d) allows for immediate relief by a judge upon dismissal of charges. Section (c) allows a party to file for relief immediately after charges are dismissed.
So I say again, I find no requirement the petitioner wait out the pertinent sol of the initial charge considered. In fact, I find the law urges one to file for relief asap. I cannot agree with Bedrossian because I find no obligation to wait out any pertinent sol.
Now, none of that removes you (your friend) from the obligation to support your petition. The law doesn’t appear to be a situation where the state first has to prove their case and the defendant rebut any proofs to be deemed not guilty. It specifically obligates a petitioner to support their petition and then it allows the state to present evidence that would show the petition should be denied. You have to make your case there was no reasonable cause to effect the arrest I.e. you were factually innocent
In any court hearing to determine the factual innocence of a party, the initial burden of proof shall rest with the petitioner to show that no reasonable cause exists to believe that the arrestee committed the offense for which the arrest was made. If the court finds that this showing of no reasonable cause has been made by the petitioner, then the burden of proof shall shift to the respondent to show that a reasonable cause exists to believe that the petitioner committed the offense for which the arrest was made
It suggests possible sources of support for the petition:
any judicial determination of factual innocence made pursuant to this section may be heard and determined upon declarations, affidavits, police reports, or any other evidence submitted by the parties which is material, relevant, and reliable.

