Updated: Status Conference in Convicted Achilli Murderer's Case

The man convicted of murdering former  will have to wait until April 21 to find out if his new attorney will file a motion for a new trial.

San Jose attorney Edward Sousa, appointed to represent Paul Garcia on Feb. 23, appeared in Dept. 34 of the San Jose Hall of Justice Thursday afternoon with his client for a case status conference.

Sousa asked Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge David Cena for 60 days to review trial transcripts, materials, search warrants, computers, cell phones, phone records and 470 CDs or DVDs related to the high-profile murder-for-hire case.

But Cena declined to give him that much time and instead called him back into court at 1:30 p.m. April 21 so as to not prolong the case. 

Sousa said Cena appointed him to represent Garcia after his previous attorney, Harry Robertson, declared a conflict of interest and was allowed to withdraw from the case.

Robertson had represented Garcia for almost three years, Sousa added. The respected attorney said he's working on five other murder cases and that he's filed an application with Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Philip Pennypacker to get the case's jury selection transcripts.

"In Santa Clara County, juries have made mistakes ... I don't know if the verdict is right or wrong," Sousa told the judge in the small courtroom filled with Garcia's friends and mother, Connie Garcia. Also in attendance were a handful of Achilli's friends, who've been following the case diligently since it started.

"I've got the case, and my job is to determine if there are any pre-judgement motions that should be filed on behalf of Mr. Garcia and most likely of which, potentially, could be a motion for a new trial," Sousa explained.

On Oct. 26, 2010, Garcia was convicted of first-degree murder, but he hasn't been sentenced. Sousa said this is the time to consider the filings of such motions if there are grounds such as jury misconduct, prosecutorial misconduct, insufficiency of evidence or newly discovered evidence, among others.

"I'm not saying any of those exist," Sousa said. "They are just potential grounds that I have to look at."

There could also be non-statutory grounds for Sousa seeking a new trial, such as the possibility that Garcia was denied his constitutional right to due process and a fair trial for any reason, he added.

"It's an extraordinarily voluminous file ... in excess of 15,000, 20,000 pages of paper. I just got the case ... ," Sousa said when asked on what specific grounds he could ask for a new trial.

Garcia, the former owner of Los Gatos'  and the 180 Restaurant and Lounge, was convicted of ordering Achilli's murder on March 14, 2008. Achilli was gunned down in the driveway of his Los Gatos townhouse.

Miguel Chaidez's sentencing is scheduled for March 17. He's believed to have been the middleman who hired shooter Lucio Estrada to kill Achilli. Estrada has already been sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

Santa Clara County District Attorney Jeff Rosen is prosecuting the high profile and was successful at convincing the jury that Garcia ordered and paid for Achilli's murder when he became enraged upon learning that Achilli was dating Tessa Donnelly, a woman he had also dated.

The jury convicted Garcia of first-degree murder for hire. He's facing life without the possibility of parole. The jury also convicted Chaidez of first-degree murder, and he's facing 25 years to life.

Rosen has said he would be opposing a motion for a new trial since he doesn't believe there are any grounds that would justify it. After the hearing, the district attorney said he wanted Sousa to prepare his motion as soon as possible to move the case forward.

Cena expressed concern about prolonging Garcia's fate in light of Sousa's five other murder cases and having to possibly hear a motion for a new trial almost a year after the trial occurred. 

When Sousa said he intended to put the case on the front burner, the judge told him he knew he would do that, but he wondered why Sousa needed to review every piece of evidence related to the case when it wasn't going to be retried or appealed.