Perkins v. Brazelton
Decision Date | 28 May 2015 |
Docket Number | Case No. 1:13-cv-01205 LJO MJS (HC) |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California |
Parties | WAYNE DESHOWN PERKINS, Petitioner, v. P.D. BRAZELTON, Warden, Respondent. |
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.Respondent is represented by Christina H. Simpson of the office of the Attorney General.
Petitioner is currently in the custody of the California Department of Corrections pursuant to a judgment of the Superior Court of California, County of Kern, following his conviction by jury trial on March 15, 2010, for first degree murder, possession of a firearm by a felon, attempt to prevent or dissuade a witness, and various enhancements.(Clerk's Tr.at 2384-85.)Petitioner was sentenced to an indeterminate term of life without the possibility of parole for murder consecutive to a term of seven (7) years to life in state prison for attempting to dissuade a witness.(Id.)
Petitioner filed a direct appeal with the California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, which affirmed the judgment on May 18, 2012.(Lodged Docs. 4-6, People v. Perkins, 2012 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 3735(May 18, 2012).)On August 8, 2012, the California Supreme Court denied review.(Lodged Docs. 7-8.)Petitioner did not seek collateral review of the conviction in state court.
Petitioner filed the instant federal habeas petition on August 2, 2013.(Pet., ECF No. 1.)Petitioner presents seven claims for relief in the instant petition.Petitioner alleges: (1) that the trial court coerced a verdict from the jury by requiring them to continue to deliberate and placing undue pressure on the holdout juror; (2) that his right to an open and public trial was violated by the court instructing the public to remain in the courtroom until after the jurors had left the building; (3) that the jury was provided overly prejudicial evidence regarding a previous shooting incident in which Petitioner was involved; (4) that he suffered ineffective assistance of counsel when trial counsel failed to request to redact portions of recorded statement Petitioner made to law enforcement; (5) that the prosecutor failed to present corroborating evidence of an accomplice, as required by state law; (6) that the trial court erred by denying his motion to bifurcate the trial with regard to the gang enhancements; and (7) that Petitioner was denied his right to be present at all critical stages of trial when he was denied his request to be personally present for read back of testimony to the jury during deliberations.(Id.)Respondent filed an answer to the petition on November 6, 2013.(ECF No. 12.)Petitioner filed a traverse on November 20, 2013.(ECF No. 13.)The matter stands ready for adjudication.
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
