(HC) Jones v. People of the State of California

— 1 — — 2 — — 3 — — 4 — — 5 — — 6 — — 7 — — 8 — UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT — 9 — EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA — 10 — 11 ANTHONY JONES, Case No. 1:23-cv-00632-SAB-HC 12 Petitioner, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF 13 v. PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 14 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT 15 TO RANDOMLY ASSIGN DISTRICT Respondent. JUDGE — 16 — 17 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 18 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . 19 I. 20 BACKGROUND 21 In 2010, Petitioner was convicted by a jury of first-degree murder with the special 22 circumstance finding that the murder was intentional and occurred while Petitioner was an active 23 participant in a criminal street gang and the murder was carried out to further the activities of the 24 gang. Petitioner was sentenced to an imprisonment term of twenty-five years to life. (ECF No. 1 25 at 44.)1 26 In 2019, Petitioner filed a petition for resentencing pursuant to California Criminal Code 27 section 1170.95. The superior court summarily denied the petition at the prima facie stage. (ECF 1 No. 1 at 44.) Petitioner appealed, and the California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District 2 affirmed the denial in a reasoned decision on February 18, 2022. (Id. at 43–54.) The California 3 Supreme Court denied the petition for review on April 27, 2022. (Id. at 56.) 4 On April 24, 2023, Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus that 5 challenges the state courts’ denial of relief, asserting that his due process and equal protection 6 rights were violated by the superior court summarily denying Petitioner’s petition for 7 resentencing and denying the opportunity for an evidentiary hearing. (ECF No. 1.) 8 II. 9 DISCUSSION 10 Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases (“Habeas Rules”) requires preliminary 11 review of a habeas petition and allows a district court to dismiss a petition before the respondent 12 is ordered to file a response, if it “plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that 13 the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 14 Cases in the United States District Courts, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. 15 By statute, federal courts “shall entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus in 16 behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he 17 is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. 18 § 2254(a). “[T]he second use of ‘in custody’ in the statute requires literally that the person 19 applying for the writ is contending that he is ‘in custody’ in violation of the Constitution or other 20 federal laws.” Bailey v. Hill, 599 F.3d 976, 979 (9th Cir. 2010) (emphasis added). See Dickerson 21 v. United States, 530 U.S. 428 , 439 n.3 (2000). 22 In the instant petition, Petitioner asserts that he is entitled to relief pursuant to California 23 Senate Bills 1437 and 775 and challenges the state courts’ denial of relief, arguing that his due 24 process and equal protection rights were violated by the superior court summarily denying 25 Petitioner’s petition for resentencing and denying the opportunity for an evidentiary hearing. 26 (ECF No. 1.) These are issues of state law, and errors of state law generally do not warrant 27 federal habeas corpus relief. See Wilson v. Corcoran, 562 U.S. 1, 5 (2010) (per curiam) (“[I]t is 1 collateral attack in the federal courts.”); Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62 , 67–68 (1991) (“We 2 have stated many times that ‘federal habeas corpus relief does not lie for errors of state law.’ 3 Today, we reemphasize that it is not the province of a federal habeas court to reexamine state4 court determinations on state-law questions.” (citations omitted)). Petitioner may not “transform 5 a state-law issue into a federal one merely by asserting a violation of due process,” Langford v. 6 Day, 110 F.3d 1380, 1389 (9th Cir. 1996), and Petitioner “cannot establish an equal protection 7 claim warranting habeas relief, simply because, or if, the [state court] misapplied [California] 8 law or departed from its past precedents,” Little v. Crawford, 449 F.3d 1075, 1083 (9th Cir. 9 2006). See Beck v. Washington, 369 U.S. 541 , 554–55 (1962) (“We have said time and again 10 that the Fourteenth Amendment does not assure uniformity of judicial decisions . . . [or] 11 immunity from judicial error . . . . Were it otherwise, every alleged misapplication of state law 12 would constitute a federal constitutional question.” (citations and internal quotation marks 13 omitted) (alterations in original)). 14 Nevertheless, a state court’s misapplication of state law may give rise to federal habeas 15 corpus relief if a petitioner can demonstrate that the error was “so arbitrary or capricious as to 16 constitute an independent due process or Eighth Amendment violation.” Lewis v. Jeffers, 497 17 U.S. 764 , 780 (1990). California Senate Bill 1437 amended the law to allow persons convicted of 18 murder under a felony-murder or natural and probable consequences theory to petition to have 19 their conviction vacated and be resentenced if the person was “not the actual killer, did not act 20 with the intent to kill, or was not a major participant in the underlying felony who acted with 21 reckless indifference to human life.” People v. Gentile, 10 Cal. 5th 830, 842, 847 (2020) (internal 22 quotation mark and citation omitted). Senate Bill 775 expanded those provisions to apply to 23 persons with attempted murder or manslaughter convictions. See People v. Delgadillo, 14 Cal. 24 5th 216, 223 n.3 (2022), as modified (Feb. 15, 2023). In a reasoned decision, the California 25 Court of Appeal found that “the verdict establishes petitioner was not found guilty under [the 26 natural and probable consequences] theory, but rather based on his own intent to kill the victim” 27 because “[t]o find the [gang] special circumstance true, the jury was required to find petitioner 1 | the argument that the prosecution proceeded under a theory of felony murder. (ECF No. 1 at 54.) 2 | Here, Petitioner was not convicted under a felony murder or natural and probable consequences 3 | theory, nor was he convicted of attempted murder or manslaughter. Accordingly, the state court’s 4 | determination that Petitioner was not eligible for relief under California Senate Bills 1437 and 5 | 775 was not arbitrary or capricious, and Petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas corpus relief. 6 Ii. 7 RECOMMENDATION & ORDER 8 Based on the foregoing, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the petition for writ of 9 | habeas corpus be DISMISSED. 10 Further, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to randomly assign this action to a District 11 | Judge. 12 This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the United States District Court 13 | Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 14 | of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. 15 | Within THIRTY (30) days after service of the Findings and Recommendation, Petitioner may 16 | file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be 17 | captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” The assigned 18 | District Judge will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 19 | § 636(b)(1)(C). Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may 20 | result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) 21 | (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). — 22 — 73 IT IS SO ORDERED. DAM Le 24 | Dated: _June 8, 2023 _ Of 05 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE — 26 — — 27 — — 28 —