Dickey v. Davis
Decision Date | 13 January 2017 |
Docket Number | Case No. 1:06–cv–00357–AWI–SAB |
Citation | 231 F.Supp.3d 634 |
Parties | Colin Raker DICKEY, Petitioner, v. Ron DAVIS, Warden of San Quentin State Prison, Respondent. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California |
David A, Senior, Ann–Kathryn Tria, Matthew Laurence Weston, McBreen and Senior, Los Angeles, CA, Joseph Schlesinger, California Appellate Project, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Justain Paul Riley, Ward Allen Campbell, Attorney General's Office for the State of California Department of Justice, Sacramento, CA, for Respondent.
DEATH PENALTY CASE
(1) DENYING REQUEST TO STRIKE SECOND AMENDED ANSWER (DOC. NO. 128); (2) DENYING REQUEST FOR FACTUAL DEVELOPMENT (DOC. NOS. 116, 128); (3) DENYING GUILT PHASE CLAIMS (DOC. NOS. 51, 51–1); (4) SETTING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE; and (5) DIRECTING THE COURT CLERK TO SUBSTITUTE WARDEN RON DAVIS AS RESPONDENT
Petitioner Colin Raker Dickey is a state prisoner, sentenced to death, proceeding with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He is represented in this action by appointed counsel David Senior, Ann Tria and Matthew Weston.
Respondent Ron Davis is named as Warden of San Quentin State Prison. He is represented in this action by Brian Smiley and Justain Riley of the Office of the California Attorney General.
Before the court for decision are i) petitioner's request to strike respondent's second amended answered filed September 10, 2014, ii) petitioner's record based guilt phase claims I, II (portions), IV, VIII, XII (portions), XIII, XIV, XV, XVI, XVII, XVIII, XIX, XXI, XXII, XXIII, XXIV, XXVI and XXVIII, including subclaims,2 and iii) petitioner's request for factual development of claims II(B), II(C), II(F), II(G), II(H), II(S), II(T), II(V), XIII, XIV, XV and XXIV.3
Having carefully reviewed the parties' filings and the relevant case law and for the reasons set out below, the undersigned finds that respondent's second amended answer filed as an opposition brief shall not be stricken; the petition's noted guilt phase claims shall be denied on the merits; and petitioner's motion for factual development of the noted guilt phase claims shall be denied.
The court sets a case management conference to discuss proceedings on the penalty phase claims and for ex parte budgetary discussions with petitioner's counsel.
Petitioner was charged in Fresno County with counts 1 and 2 for murder (Penal Code § 187 ), with allegations of robbery-murder and burglary-murder special circumstances (Penal Code §§ 190.2(a)(17), 211, 459/460); counts 3 and 4 for robbery (Penal Code § 211 ); count 5 for burglary (Penal Code §§ 459/460); and allegations of multiple murder special circumstance (Penal Code §§ 190.2(a)(3) ) and aider and abettor liability (Penal Code § 190.2(b) ).4 (CT 297–301, 303–307.) Petitioner pleaded not guilty to all the charges. (RT 126; CT 232, 302.)
Petitioner's jury trial began on January 7, 1991 in Fresno County Case No. 416903–3. (CT 295–296.) On March 15, 1991, the jury found petitioner guilty of the murders of Marie Caton and Louis Freiri with special circumstances of felony-murder robbery and felony-murder burglary and multiple murder and found petitioner guilty of first degree robbery of each victim and first degree burglary of their residence. (CT 380–385, 463–468, 610–614.)
On March 19, 1991, petitioner admitted a prior felony conviction (CT 472) and purported to waive presence at the penalty phase. (CT 472–76.) On March 22, 1991, the jury returned a penalty phase verdict of death. (CT 478–82, 504; see also Penal Code, § 190.2, subds. (a)(3), (17)(A)(G).)
On March 26, 1991, responsive to petitioner's dissatisfaction with trial counsel Schultz, the trial court appointed Katherine Hart to represent petitioner on motion for new trial and motion to modify the verdict. (CT 505; RT 5181–87.) Therein Ms. Hart alleged insufficiency of evidence, prosecutorial misconduct, instructional error, improper waiver of prior felony conviction, trial court error and ineffective assistance of counsel at the guilt and penalty phases. (CT 525–589.) The motion for new trial was denied on January 17, 1992. (CT 516–518.) The motion for modification of the verdict was denied on February 21, 1992 and petitioner was sentenced to death. (CT 609–615; Feb. 21, 1992 Transcript, at 50.)5
On April 14, 2003, petitioner filed a state habeas petition, In re Dickey , S115079 (Lod. Doc. 7), which the California Supreme Court denied on November 30, 2005. (Lod. Doc. 10.)
The California Supreme Court affirmed petitioner's conviction on direct appeal on May 23, 2005. People v. Dickey , 35 Cal.4th 884, 28 Cal.Rptr.3d 647, 111 P.3d 921 (2005). That court denied petitioner's request for rehearing on July 13, 2005. People v. Colin Raker Dickey , CSC Case No. S025519.
On February 21, 2006, the United States Supreme Court denied petitioner's writ of certiorari. Dickey v. California , 546 U.S. 1177, 126 S.Ct. 1347, 164 L.Ed.2d 60 (2006).
On March 30, 2006, petitioner began this federal habeas proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 by filing a combined request for appointment of counsel and temporary stay of execution. On October 4, 2007, petitioner filed his federal petition for writ of habeas corpus.6 On May 21, 2008, this court ordered federal proceedings held in abeyance pending state exhaustion of certain claims. (Doc. No. 69.)
On July 21, 2008, petitioner filed his second state habeas petition, In re Dickey , S165302. (Lod. Doc. 30.) On May 23, 2012, the California Supreme Court summarily denied the second state petition on the merits as to all claim and on procedural grounds as to certain claims. (Lod. Doc. 31.)
Respondent filed his answer in this proceeding (Doc. No. 103) and amended answer correcting clerical error (Doc. No. 105), on August 29, 2013. Therein respondent admitted the jurisdictional allegations and asserted exhaustion and procedural defenses and denied all claims 1 through 29.7
On November 18, 2013, this court ordered bifurcated briefing with the guilt phase claims briefed separately from and prior to the penalty phase claims. (Doc. No. 111.)
On April 16, 2014, petitioner filed his brief in support of guilt phase claims which includes his noted initial request for factual development. (Doc. No. 116.)
On September 10, 2014, respondent filed a second amended answer as his brief in response to petitioner's brief. (Doc. No. 125.)
On November 7, 2014, petitioner filed his brief in reply to respondent's brief including the noted request that respondent's second amended answer be stricken and for further factual development. (Doc. No. 128.)
The following factual summary is taken from the California Supreme Court's opinion in People v. Dickey, 35 Cal.4th 884, 28 Cal.Rptr.3d 647, 111 P.3d 921 (2005), and is presumed correct. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2), (e)(1). Petitioner does not present clear and convincing evidence to the contrary; thus, the court adopts the factual recitations set forth by the state court. See Vasquez v. Kirkland , 572 F.3d 1029, 1031 n.1 (9th Cir. 2009) ().
To continue reading
Request your trial- Kourosh Hamidi v. Serv. Emps. Int'l Union Local 1000,
-
Roberts v. Gallagher
... ... the opposing party, the amended pleading is a nullity and ... without legal effect.”); Dickey v. Davis, 231 ... F.Supp.3d 634, 664, (E.D. Cal. 2017) (“Generally ... service of an amendment that does not comply with Rule 15 has ... ...
-
Selck v. Cnty. of Sacramento
... ... petition covering the judgment or judgments of each court ... See Dickey v. Davis, 231 F.Supp.3d 634, 728 (E.D ... Cal. 2017). The second amended petition continues to ... reference to separate state court ... ...
-
Gibson v. Haynes, CASE NO. C17-5015 BHS
...not a denial of due process of the law 'unless a criminal defendant can show bad faith on the part of the police.'" Dickey v. Davis, 231 F. Supp. 3d 634, 766 (E.D. Cal. 2017). Contrary to Petitioner's argument, the forensic evidence described above falls under this category of "potentially ......
-
Possible Reliance: Protecting Legally Innocent Johnson Claimants.
...federal district court in the district in which they are in custody pursuant to 28 U.S.C. [section] 2241(d). E.g., Dickey v. Davis, 231 F. Supp. 3d 634, 652, 659 (E.D. Cal. (25.) 28 U.S.C. [section] 2255(a). (26.) Parke v. Raley, 506 U.S. 20, 34 (1992). One exception to the preponderance st......