Davis v. Johnson
Decision Date | 22 February 2019 |
Docket Number | Case No. 15-cv-05760-HSG |
Citation | 359 F.Supp.3d 831 |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of California |
Parties | Shemeeka C. DAVIS, Petitioner, v. Deborah K. JOHNSON, Respondent. |
Marc Jonathan Zilversmit, Attorney at Law, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Jill Marietta Thayer, California State Attorney General's Office, John H. Deist, Deputy Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
Re: Dkt. No. 20
Pending before the Court is Petitioner Shemeeka C. Davis's second amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus, filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging the validity of a conviction obtained against her in state court. Dkt. No. 20 ("Pet."). Respondent Deborah K. Johnson, Warden, filed an answer, Dkt. No. 23 ("Ans."), and Petitioner filed a traverse, Dkt. No. 31 ("Trav."). For the following reasons, the Court DENIES the petition.
On July 6, 2010, the Contra Costa County District Attorney charged Petitioner by information with one count of murder ( Cal. Penal Code § 187 ); two counts of torture ( Cal. Penal Code § 206 ); and two counts of felony child abuse ( Cal. Penal Code § 270a(a) ). Pet. at 2. Petitioner pled not guilty on July 19, 2010, and pled not guilty by reason of insanity on March 4, 2011. Id.
On June 7, 2011, a jury returned a verdict of guilty on all counts and found the murder to be of the first degree. Id. Following the sanity phase of the trial, the jury found Petitioner sane. Id.
On January 6, 2012, the trial court sentenced Petitioner to 32 years to life in prison. Id.
Petitioner appealed her conviction to the California Court of Appeal, First District. On July 9, 2014, the court affirmed Petitioner's convictions in an unpublished opinion. See Pet. Exh. A. Petitioner sought review from the Supreme Court, but her petition was denied without comment on October 1, 2014. See Ans. Exhs. 9 (petition), 10 (denial of review).
On August 18, 2014, proceeding pro se , Petitioner filed in this Court a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. See Dkt. No. 1. On May 17, 2016, the Court appointed an attorney to represent Petitioner in her federal habeas challenge. See Dkt. No. 14. Counsel filed a first amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of Petitioner on July 26. See Dkt. No. 17.
Following the Supreme Court's decisions in Johnson v. United States , ––– U.S. ––––, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015) and Welch v. United States , ––– U.S. ––––, 136 S.Ct. 1257, 194 L.Ed.2d 387 (2016), Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the California Supreme Court on July 13, 2016, asserting that she was entitled to relief under those decisions. See Pet. Exh. C. The California Supreme Court denied the petition without comment on September 14, 2016. See id.
On September 15, 2016, Petitioner moved for leave to file a second amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus. See Dkt. Nos. 20, 21. The Court granted Petitioner's motion on October 14. See Dkt. No. 22.
The following background facts describing the evidence presented at trial are from the opinion of the California Court of Appeal:1
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Smith v. Allen
... ... in Shasta County, as opposed to an alternate venue. (Cf ... People v. Davis (2009) 46 Cal.4th 539, 578, 94 ... Cal.Rptr.3d 322, 208 P.3d 78.) ... The population of Shasta County, which the court placed at ... basis of procedural bar, we hesitate to resolve it on that ... basis ourselves.”); see also Franklin v ... Johnson , 290 F.3d 1223, 1232 (9th Cir. 2002) (stating ... that courts may “reach the merits of habeas petitions ... if they are, on their face ... ...
-
Nogales v. Madden
...one year statute of limitations expired for both of his claims. Nogales is not entitled to any statutory tolling. Davis v. Johnson, 359 F. Supp. 3d 831, 862 (N.D. Cal. 2019) (stating that "once the federal statute of limitations has run, a newly filed state petition does not reset the clock......
-
Perera v. Jennings
...Jr., As-Applied and Facial Challenges and Third-Party Standing , 113 Harv. L. Rev. 1321, 1334 (2000) ); see also Davis v. Johnson , 359 F. Supp. 3d 831, 863 (N.D. Cal. 2019) ("A successful challenge to the facial constitutionality of a statute invalidates the statute itself, whereas a succe......
-
Mendoza v. Pollard
...that "once the federal statute of limitations has run, a newly filed state petition does not reset the clock." Davis v. Johnson, 359 F. Supp. 3d 831, 862 (N.D. Cal. 2019). Therefore, because Petitioner's first habeas petition was filed after the expiration of AEDPA's limitations period, he ......