Harris v. Garcia, C 01-21193 RMW (PR)
Decision Date | 17 August 2010 |
Docket Number | No. C 01-21193 RMW (PR),C 01-21193 RMW (PR) |
Citation | 734 F.Supp.2d 973 |
Parties | Nicholas HARRIS, Petitioner, v. Sylvia GARCIA, Respondent. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of California |
Nicholas Harris, Corcoran, CA, pro se.
Christopher William Grove, Attorney at Law, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PETITIONER'S WRIT FOR HABEAS CORPUS
On April 9, 1997, petitioner was convicted of two counts of grand theft, one count of attempting to dissuade a witness in furtherance of a conspiracy, one count of access card forgery, and one count of escape from a county jail. After unsuccessfully seeking relief in the California courts, he filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging all five convictions. This court found that the petition stated eleven cognizable claims under § 2254 and issued an order to show cause why this court should not grant the writ. Respondent filed an answer addressing the merits of the petition, and petitioner filed a traverse. Thereafter, on September 18, 2007, the court ordered respondent to file a supplemental answer showing cause why the petition should not be granted based upon an additional claim raised in petitioner's amended petition, which claim challenges petitioner's sentence. Respondent filed a supplemental answer, and petitioner filed a supplemental traverse.
After reviewing the papers and the record, the court finds that petitioner is entitled to habeas corpus relief as to his conviction of one of the two counts of grand theft. Accordingly, the court grants the petition to the extent it seeks relief from the state court judgment on that count. The court finds, however, that petitioner is not entitled to habeas corpus relief with respect to his conviction on the four remaining counts, and denies his petition with respect to his conviction on such counts. Based upon the sentences he received on the four remaining counts, upon which habeas relief is not granted, petitioner's continued custody in is lawful.
On March 18, 1997, petitioner was brought to trial on five separate felony charges, and allegations of four prior "strike" convictions. Four of the five charges against petitioner stemmed from his and his girlfriend's (Gina Miller) relationships with a series of elderly gentlemen, whom the couple was accused of defrauding.The prosecution formally charged petitioner and Miller with grand theft by false pretenses from two such gentlemen, Nicholas Brayevich and Wilbur Johnson, and additionally introduced evidence of three uncharged similar incidents involving Ned Wyss, Robert Dodd, and Jack McCallister. In addition to the theft charges, petitioner was charged with access card forgery with respect to Wilbur Johnson, and both petitioner and Miller were charged with attempting to dissuade Nicholas Brayevich from testifying. Petitioner was also charged with escaping from the Santa Clara County jail while awaiting trial on the above charges.
Petitioner and Miller were tried together, and the evidence admitted against them was voluminous. The California Court of Appeal summarized the evidence presented to the jury in a "much abridged" format as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial- Oracle Corp. v. SAP AG
-
Shell v. LeWis
...federal law.'")). A federal court cannot grant habeas relief based on a Circuit Court's interpretation of the law. Harris v. Garcia, 734 F. Supp. 2d 973, 988 (N.D. Cal. 2010) ("While a state court decision may no longer be overturned on habeas review simply because of a conflict with circui......
-
People v. Perez
...acted with the intent to assist a conspiracy to intimidate the victim or witness. (CALCRIM Nos. 2622, 2623; accord, Harris v. Garcia (N.D.Cal. 2010) 734 F.Supp.2d 973, 1004.) Defendant contends that the trial court's jury instructions on this offense suffer from two defects.4 First, defenda......
-
People v. Perez
...acted with the intent to assist a conspiracy to intimidate the victim or witness. (CALCRIM Nos. 2622, 2623; accord, Harris v. Garcia (N.D.Cal. 2010) 734 F.Supp.2d 973, 1004.) Defendant contends that the trial court's jury instructions on this offense suffer from two defects.4 First, defenda......