Hernandez v. Lewis, Case No. 1:12-cv-01661 DAD MJS (HC)
Decision Date | 06 December 2016 |
Docket Number | Case No. 1:12-cv-01661 DAD MJS (HC) |
Parties | JESUS CIANEZ HERNANDEZ, Petitioner, v. GREG LEWIS, Warden, Respondent. |
Court | United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Eastern District of California |
Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding with a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner is represented by Linnea Johnson. Respondent, warden of Pelican Bay State Prison, is represented by David Eldridge of the office of the California Attorney General. Respondent declined magistrate judge jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). (ECF No. 20.)
Petitioner is in the custody of the California Department of Corrections pursuant to a judgment of the Superior Court of California, County of Stanislaus. On January 11, 1991, Petitioner was convicted by a jury of first degree murder with special circumstances for financial gain and for use of a firearm, and conspiracy to commit murder. (ECF No. 50-5 at 72.) On January 22, 1991, the penalty phase of the trial began. (Clerk's Tr. Vol. 4 at 921.) The jury returned a death verdict against Petitioner on February 1, 1991. (Clerk's Tr. Vol. 5 at 99-91.) On March 21, 1991, Petitioner was sentenced to death. (ECF No. 50-5 at 72.)
Petitioner filed his automatic appeal with the California Supreme Court on August 5, 1999. (ECF Nos. 42, 42-1, 42-2.) On June 2, 2003, the California Supreme Court reversed the death sentence and remanded the case to the Stanislaus County Superior Court. People v. Hernandez, 30 Cal.4th 835 (2003). The California Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, but vacated the finding of special circumstances and reversed the death penalty verdict. (Id.)
In August 2006, upon remand, the Stanislaus County Superior Court imposed a sentence of life in prison without possibility of parole on the murder conviction, 25 years to life on the conspiracy conviction, three years on each of the firearm-use enhancements, and monetary fines. People v. Hernandez, 2007 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 8324, 2, 2007 WL 2994646 (Cal. App. Oct. 16, 2007). On direct appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District modified the monetary fine amount but otherwise affirmed the judgment on October 16, 2007. Id.
While the automatic appeal was pending, Petitioner pursued collateral relief in the form of petitions for writ of habeas corpus in state court. On May 31, 2002 and July 15, 2003, Petitioner filed petitions for writ of habeas corpus in the California Supreme Court. On March 2, 2005, both petitions were denied. See Hernandez on H.C., 2005 Cal. LEXIS 2350 (Cal. Mar. 2, 2005); Hernandez on H.C., 2005 Cal. LEXIS 2351 (Cal. Mar. 2, 2005).
On March 7, 2006, Petitioner filed a second supplemental petition in the California Supreme Court. On May 9, 2007, the California Supreme Court issued an order to show cause why relief should not be granted returnable to the Stanislaus County Superior Court. (See Pet., Ex. 278, ECF No. 1-12 at 8.) An evidentiary hearing was held onFebruary 5, 2008, and on June 4, 2008, the Superior Court denied the writ. (Pet., Exs. R-S, ECF No. 1-3 at 89-195.)
On July 16, 2008, Petitioner filed a habeas petition in the Fifth District Court of Appeal. (Mot. To Dismiss, Ex. C, ECF No. 24.) The court denied the petition on April 8, 2010 and issued its remittitur on May 10, 2010. (Id.) On August 6, 2010, Petitioner filed a petition in the California Supreme Court; it was denied on October 12, 2011. (Mot. to Dismiss, Ex. D.)
On October 10, 2012, Petitioner filed the instant federal petition for writ of habeas corpus in this Court. The Court appointed Petitioner counsel and ordered Respondent to file a response on November 13, 2012. (ECF Nos. 6-7.) On February 4, 2013, Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss the petition as being filed outside the one-year limitations period prescribed by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). (Mot. to Dismiss.) The Court found that Petitioner was entitled to equitable tolling of the one year limitations period and denied the motion to dismiss on September 30, 2013. (ECF Nos. 27, 30.) On October 3, 2013, the Court ordered Respondent to file an answer to the petition. (ECF No. 33.) Respondent filed an answer on January 27, 2014. (ECF No. 58.) Petitioner filed a traverse on June 27, 2014. (ECF No. 67.) The matter stands ready for adjudication.
The petition raised seven grounds for relief based on the following constitutional violations:
1) That the prosecutor failed to disclose evidence favorable to the defense at trial;
2) That Petitioner's conviction was obtained by the use of false testimony;
3) That Petitioner was denied the right to conflict-free counsel;
4) That Petitioner's counsel was ineffective at the guilt phase of trial;
5) That the prosecution engaged in misconduct resulting in his conviction;
6) That Petitioner is innocent; and
7) That Petitioner is entitled to relief based on cumulative error.
However, in Petitioner's traverse, he withdrew claims three through six. (Id. at 11-12.) Accordingly, only claims 1, 2, and 7 remain pending before the court.
To continue reading
Request your trial