Mitchell v. Martel
Decision Date | 11 July 2022 |
Docket Number | 20-04294 BLF (PR) |
Parties | RUBEN MITCHELL, Petitioner, v. MICHAEL MARTEL, Warden, Respondent. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of California |
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY; DIRECTIONS TO CLERK
Petitioner has filed a pro se amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his 2016 criminal conviction. Dkt. No. 6 (“Amended Petition”). Respondent filed an answer on the merits. Dkt. No. 12 (“Answer”). Petitioner did not file a traverse, although given an opportunity to do so. For the reasons set forth below, the petition is DENIED.
A jury convicted Petitioner of kidnapping (count 1); assault with a firearm (count 2); torture (count 3); rape by a foreign object acting in concert (count 4); assault with a deadly weapon, a hunting knife (count 5); attempted pandering by procuring (count 6); and human trafficking for commercial sex (count 7).[1] See Dkt. No. 21 at 46-50; Dkt. No. 21-2 at 2-5; see also Cal. Pen. Code §§ 206, 207, 236.1(b), 245(a)(1)-(2), 264.1, 266i(a)(1), 289(a).
Petitioner was sentenced to 45 years to life in state prison, comprised of 25 years to life on count 4 (penetration with a foreign object acting in concert), 20 years on count 7 (human trafficking), and a life term on count 3 (torture). Dkt. No. 21-1 at 11.
On May 14, 2019, the California Court of Appeal (“state appellate court”) affirmed the judgment. See Dkt. No. 30-2 at 242-65; see also People v. Mitchell, No. A150156, A150433, 2019 WL 2098789 (unpublished). On August 21, 2019, the California Supreme Court summarily denied a petition for review. Dkt. No. 30-2 at 339.
When the last state court to adjudicate a federal constitutional claim on the merits does not provide an explanation for the denial,” the federal court should ‘look through' the unexplained decision to the last related state-court decision that does provide a relevant rationale.” Wilson v. Sellers,---U.S.--, 138 S.Ct. 1188, 1192 (2018). “It should then presume that the unexplained decision adopted the same reasoning.” Id. Here, the California Supreme Court did not provide an explanation for its denial of the petition for review. See Dkt. No. 30-2 at 339. Petitioner did not argue that the California Supreme Court relied on different grounds than the state appellate court. See generally, Am. Pet. Accordingly, this Court will “look through” the California Supreme Court's decision to the state appellate court's decision. See Skidmore v. Lizarraga, No. 14-CV-04222-BLF, 2019 WL 1245150, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2019) (applying Wilson).
Petitioner filed the instant federal habeas petition on June 29, 2020 and is proceeding on an amended petition filed on September 9, 2020. See Dkt. Nos. 1, 6. Petitioner does not present his arguments in the Amended Petition. Instead, he submits and relies on his briefs filed in the California Court of Appeal and the California Supreme Court. See generally, Am. Pet. (Dkt. No. 6 at 33-80; Dkt. No. 6-1 at 1-74).
The following background facts are from the opinion of the state appellate court on direct appeal:
Trial Overview
To continue reading
Request your trial