Fernandez v. W L Montgomery
Decision Date | 19 April 2016 |
Docket Number | Case No. 13-cv-02296-HSG |
Citation | 182 F.Supp.3d 991 |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of California |
Parties | Rolando Fernandez, Plaintiff, v. W L Montgomery, Respondent. |
Paul Gilruth McCarthy, Robert Joseph Beles, Law Offices of Beles & Beles, Oakland, CA, for Plaintiff.
Sharon R. Wooden, CA Attorney General's Office, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
Re: Dkt. No. 27
Before the Court is Petitioner Rolando Fernandez's ("Petitioner") second-amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus, filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging the validity of a conviction obtained against him in state court. Dkt. No. 27 ("Pet."). Respondent W.L. Montgomery, Warden of California State Prison-Calipatria, ("Respondent") has filed an answer, Dkt. No. 28 ("Ans."), and Petitioner has filed a traverse, Dkt. No. 32 ("Trav."). The Court has carefully considered the briefs submitted by the parties. For the reasons set forth below, the petition is DENIED .
In 2007, a California jury found Petitioner guilty of two counts of second-degree murder, see Cal. Pen. Code § 187(a), with a sentencing enhancement for intentional discharge of a firearm causing death, id. § 12022.53(d). Pet. ¶ 1. The prosecution also sought to prove that Petitioner was previously convicted of murder, a finding which results in a mandatory penalty of death or life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, but the jury found that allegation untrue. Pet. ¶¶ 1, 4. Petitioner was sentenced to a term of 80 years to life, less time served. Id. ¶ 8.
Petitioner directly appealed the conviction in the California Court of Appeal, alleging several constitutional and state law errors. Id. ¶ 10. In a reasoned opinion, the California Court of Appeal affirmed. Id. The California Supreme Court summarily denied review. Id. ¶ 11.
The original petition in this case was filed in this Court on May 20, 2013. Dkt. No. 1. An answer was filed on March 20, 2014. Dkt. No. 5. Petitioner filed a traverse on June 20, 2014. Dkt. Nos. 14 & 15. On June 24, 2014, Petitioner filed a motion to stay the petition and hold it in abeyance to permit exhaustion of a claim he raised for the first time in his traverse. Dkt. No. 16. The Court issued an order requiring Petitioner to clarify the procedural mechanism by which he desired to proceed with respect to his new claim. Dkt. No. 17. Petitioner reaffirmed his choice and again moved to amend and stay the petition on August 20, 2014. Dkt. No. 20. The Court granted the motion and stayed the petition on September 24, 2014. After the state court appellate decision that formed the basis for the new claim was reversed, the Court dissolved the stay and reinstated proceedings on May 29, 2015, on motion from Petitioner. Dkt. Nos. 24, 26.
Petitioner filed the instant amended petition on June 4, 2015. Respondent filed an answer on July 6, 2015, and Petitioner filed a traverse on September 4, 2015.
The following background facts describing the crime and evidence presented at trial are from the opinion of the California Court of Appeal.1
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Harrell v. Allison
...a trial court from instructing a jury with a factually inapplicable but accurate statement of state law.” Fernandez v. Montgomery, 182 F.Supp.3d 991, 1013 (N.D. Cal. 2016); accord Acajabon v. Espinoza, No. 1:16-cv-00183-MJS, 2017 WL 5608070, at *13 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2017). Where there is ......
-
Acajabon v. Espinoza
...a trial court from instructing a jury with a factually inapplicable but accurate statement of state law." Fernandez v. Montgomery, 182 F. Supp. 3d 991, 1011 (N.D. Cal. 2016); see also Steele v. Holland, 2017 WL 2021364, *8 (N.D. Cal. 2017) ("Petitioner does not cite, and the Court is not aw......
- Minor v. FedEx Office & Print Servs., Inc., Case No. 16-CV-00532-LHK
-
Abiel v. Rackley
...a trial court from instructing a jury with factually inapplicable but accurate statement of state law." Fernandez v. Montgomery, 182 F. Supp. 3d 991, 1011 (N.D. Cal. 2016); see also Steele v. Holland, 2017 WL 2021364, at *8 (N.D. Cal. May 12, 2017) ("Petitioner does not cite, and the Court ......