District Court, C.D. California — appointed by Ronald Reagan
Myers v. Mendoza-Powers
District Court, C.D. California · 2008-12-15
This case concerns a federal habeas corpus petition filed by a state prisoner who pled guilty to robbery and petty theft with a prior after a shoplifting incident at a Rite Aid store. The petitioner challenged his robbery conviction on grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel, arguing that his attorney advised him to accept a plea despite insufficient evidence to support the robbery charge. After state courts denied relief, the federal magistrate judge conducted an evidentiary hearing and recommended granting the writ on the ineffective assistance claim, concluding that counsel's performance was deficient and that the petitioner was prejudiced because he would have proceeded to trial. The district judge adopted the recommendation in full, ordering that the petitioner be allowed to withdraw his robbery plea or be released from custody within sixty days, while denying the second claim regarding a coercive plea.
criminal law
Fellows v. Dexter
District Court, C.D. California · 2008-04-28 · cited 1×
The case involves petitioner Sterling Fellows's federal habeas corpus challenge to his California state convictions for premeditated attempted murder and assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury, along with enhancements for personally inflicting great bodily injury and committing the offenses for the benefit of a criminal street gang. After the state courts affirmed the convictions and adjusted the sentence to life in prison with a 15-year minimum parole term, Fellows sought relief in federal court arguing insufficient evidence supported the gang-related findings. The magistrate judge recommended denial, and the district court adopted that recommendation after de novo review, concluding that the trial evidence—including expert testimony on the gang's primary activities such as murders and assaults, plus predicate offenses meeting statutory timing requirements—was sufficient under California Penal Code § 186.22 to uphold the enhancements. Judgment was entered denying the petition and dismissing the action with prejudice.
criminal law
United States v. Grant
District Court, C.D. California · 2007-11-30 · cited 5×
The case involved defendants Sanco Grant III and Lamont Dinkins, who pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute and distribution of cocaine base. The government sought a ten-year mandatory minimum sentence under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) based on the quantity involved, but Grant moved to strike its application to him while Dinkins was relieved of it via a substantial assistance motion. The court granted Grant's motion, holding that the ten-year minimum could not be applied, and sentenced Grant to sixty months and Dinkins to forty months. The core reasoning was that post-Booker the Sentencing Guidelines are advisory, mandatory minimums create unjust disparities between principal traffickers and peripheral offenders, and they conflict with the goal of a fair and rational sentencing system under the Guidelines.
criminal law
Banyard v. Duncan
District Court, C.D. California · 2004-10-04 · cited 4×
In Banyard v. Duncan, the petitioner challenged his conviction and sentence of twenty-five years to life in prison under California's Three Strikes Law for possessing a small amount of cocaine, based on two prior felony convictions. The district court granted the petition for writ of habeas corpus and vacated the sentence. The court reasoned that the sentence was grossly disproportionate to the offense in violation of the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment, that there was insufficient evidence that one of the prior convictions qualified as a strike, and that the petitioner received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and on appeal. The state court's contrary decision unreasonably applied clearly established federal law.
criminal lawfederal power
Buckley v. Terhune
District Court, C.D. California · 2002-12-06 · cited 7×
This case involves a habeas corpus petition by Thomas Buckley challenging his sentence after pleading guilty to second-degree murder in exchange for testifying against co-defendants in a 1986 murder case. The court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, finding that the plea agreement, as understood by Buckley and his counsel based on the prosecutor's letter and representations, limited his sentence to a maximum of 15 years. The core reasoning was that the government must fulfill the promise made to induce the plea and cooperation, even if it results in a sentence not otherwise authorized by state law, as Buckley had fully performed his obligations under the agreement. The petition was granted, directing enforcement of the 15-year term with appropriate credits.
criminal lawprocedure
Lacy v. Lewis
District Court, C.D. California · 2000-09-12 · cited 12×
In Lacy v. Lewis, petitioner Durnel Lacy filed a federal habeas corpus petition challenging his 1996 California state conviction for possession of rock cocaine and a smoking device, as well as his 25-years-to-life sentence under the Three Strikes law, primarily on the ground that the trial court violated his constitutional rights by denying his motion for self-representation. The U.S. District Court, adopting the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, granted a conditional writ of habeas corpus based solely on that claim and did not reach the petitioner's other grounds. The court's reasoning centered on the determination that the denial of self-representation infringed the petitioner's Sixth Amendment rights as established in Faretta v. California, that the state appellate court's contrary conclusion was an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law, and that the error was not harmless.
criminal lawcivil rights