Roybal v. Davis, Case No. 99cv2152–JM (KSC)
| Citation | 148 F.Supp.3d 958 |
| Decision Date | 02 December 2015 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 99cv2152–JM (KSC) |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of California |
| Parties | Rudolph Roybal, Petitioner, v. Ron Davis, Acting Warden of the California State Prison at San Quentin, Respondent. |
Rudolph Jose Roybal, San Quentin, CA, pro se.
Elizabeth Armena Missakian, Law Office of Elizabeth A. Missakian, John Owen Lanahan, Law Office of John Lanahan, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner.
DEATH PENALTY CASE
(1) DENYING PETITIONER'S REQUEST FOR AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING AND/OR DISCOVERY ON CLAIMS 4–8, 10–11, 25–27, AND 29–31;
TABLE OF CONTENTS
On June 17, 2013, Petitioner filed the First Amended Petition [“FAP”] and filed a motion for leave to file the FAP on August 1, 2013. (ECF Nos. 215, 220.) After briefing on issues discussed in more detail below, on December 16, 2013, the Court granted Petitioner's motion. (ECF. No. 240.) On February 14, 2014, Respondent filed an Answer [“Ans.”] to the FAP, and on April 15, 2014, Petitioner filed a Traverse. (ECF Nos. 241, 243.) On June 6, 2014, Petitioner filed a Request for an Evidentiary Hearing and Discovery on Claims 4–8, 10–11, 25–27 and 29–301 in the FAP. (ECF No. 249.) On June 25, 2014, Respondent filed a Response. (ECF No. 250.) On September 4, 2014, Petitioner filed a Reply. (ECF No. 264.) The Court held oral arguments on April 22, 2015. The parties also submitted supplemental briefing on the impact, if any, of Davis v. Ayala , 576 U.S. ––––, 135 S.Ct. 2187, 192 L.Ed.2d 323 (2015), on the Court's consideration of Petitioner's claims. (See ECF Nos. 278–81.)
For the following reasons, and based on the arguments presented in the written pleadings and at oral argument, the Court DENIES Respondent's request to dismiss certain claims on the basis of procedural default, DENIES Petitioner's request for an evidentiary hearing and/or discovery on Claims 4–8, 10–11, 25–27, and 29–31, DENIES habeas relief as to Claims 1–8, 10–11, and 13–38 in the FAP, and GRANTS habeas relief as to Claims 9, 12, and 39 in the FAP.
On July 21, 1992, a San Diego County jury found Petitioner guilty of first–degree murder in violation of California Penal Code section 187(a), first–degree robbery in violation of Cal. Penal Code section 211, and first–degree burglary in violation of Cal. Penal Code section 459, in the death of Yvonne Weden. (Clerk's Transcript [“CT”] 2506–09.) As to each offense, the jury found true that Petitioner personally used a knife, that he inflicted great bodily injury on the victim, and that the victim was a person 60 years of age or older. (Id. ) The jury also found true two special circumstances, murder in the commission of a robbery and murder in the commission of a burglary. (Id. ) On August 24, 1992, the jury sentenced Petitioner to death. (CT 2534–35.) The trial court denied Petitioner's motion for a new trial and sentenced him to death on October 20, 1992. (CT 2536–37.)
On January 24, 1996, attorney Barry Morris was appointed by the California Supreme Court to represent Petitioner on direct appeal and on state habeas proceedings.2 The California Supreme Court affirmed Petitioner's conviction and sentence on November 12, 1998. See People v. Roybal , 19 Cal.4th 481, 79 Cal.Rptr.2d 487, 966 P.2d 521 (1998). On January 13, 1999, the California Supreme Court denied the petition for rehearing. After one extension of time, a petition for writ of certiorari was filed in the United States Supreme Court on May 13, 1999, which was denied on October 4, 1999.
On October 5, 1999, Petitioner filed a motion for appointment of counsel in this Court. On December 14, 1999, the Court appointed Elizabeth Barranco and Russell Babcock as federal habeas counsel. On September 29, 2000, federal counsel Barranco and Babcock timely filed a federal habeas Petition. The federal Petition contained a footnote indicating in part that, (ECF No. 25 at 1, fn.1.) Respondent filed an Answer to the federal Petition on October 27, 2000, and on May 2, 2001, Petitioner filed a Traverse. Further proceedings surrounding efforts to file a state habeas petition, and events surrounding the destruction of records in Petitioner's case, are recounted in the Court's prior Order granting Petitioner's motion to file an amended petition (see ECF No. 240), and resulted in the removal of initial federal habeas counsel and the appointment of current counsel.
On March 12, 2004, attorneys John Lanahan and Elizabeth Missakian were conditionally appointed as federal habeas counsel, subject to their concurrent appointment as state habeas counsel. On July 1, 2004, Babcock moved to withdraw as state habeas counsel and on August 30, 2004, Lanahan and Missakian moved for appointment as state habeas counsel. On September 29, 2004, the California Supreme Court removed Barranco as state habeas counsel and noted that: “Barranco is hereby referred to the State Bar of California for appropriate disciplinary proceedings in light of her abandonment of her condemned client.” (Case No. S029453 at http://www.courts.ca.gov/supremecourt.htm.) Also on September 29, 2004, the California Supreme Court granted Babcock permission to withdraw as counsel, and appointed Lanahan and Missakian as state habeas counsel. On October 29, 2004, the Court converted the conditional appointment of Lanahan and Missakian to an unconditional appointment and relieved Babcock of further representation in Petitioner's federal habeas case.
On October 1, 2007, Petitioner filed a state habeas petition in the California Supreme Court in Case No. S156846. On April 28, 2008, Respondent filed an Informal Response, and on December 23, 2008, Petitioner filed an Informal Reply. On January 3, 2013, the California Supreme Court denied the state habeas petition.
On January 17, 2013, this Court held a status hearing and later issued a briefing schedule, setting a deadline for filing the amended petition and a motion for leave to amend the petition, on or before June 17, 2013. On June 17, 2013, Petitioner filed the FAP, the operative pleading in this action. After a July 12, 2013 status hearing, the parties agreed upon, and the Court ordered, a revised briefing schedule. Petitioner filed a Motion for leave to amend the petition on August 1, 2013. Respondent filed an Opposition on September 16, 2013, and on November 1, 2013, Petitioner filed a Reply. On December 16, 2013, the Court granted Petitioner's motion. On February 14, 2014, Respondent filed an Answer to the FAP, and on April 15, 2014, Petitioner filed a Traverse.
On June 6, 2014, Petitioner filed a Memorandum [“Pet. EH Mem.”] in Support of the Request for Evidentiary Hearing and Discovery, requesting an evidentiary hearing and/or discovery on Claims 4–8, 10–11, 25–27, and 29–30. On June 25, 2014, Respondent filed a Response [“Resp. to EH Mem.”] to Petitioner's Statement Regarding Evidentiary Development. On September 4, 2014, Petitioner...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jurado v. Davis
...challenges to California's lethal injection procedures without prejudice as premature. See e.g. Roybal v. Davis, No. 99cv2152 JM (KSC), 148 F.Supp.3d 958, 1106-07 (S.D. Cal. December 2, 2015); Michaels v. Chappell, No. 04cv0122 JAH (JLB), 2014 WL 7047544, at *118-19 (S.D. Cal. December 18, ......
- Little v. Gore
-
Coddington v. Martel
... ... “sacks,” “case",” “burn,” ... “Rot,” “shallow”, “deep,\xE2\x80" ... at 190; Ochoa v ... Davis , 50 F.4th 865, 888 (9th Cir. 2022); Nunes v ... Larsen , 205 Cal.App.4th 810, 826 (2012); Roybal v ... Davis , 148 F.Supp.3d 958, 1070 (S.D. Cal ... ...
-
Rangel v. Broomfield
... ... ... DEATH PENALTY CASE ... ... ORDER (1) DENYING ... summary denial[.]”); Ochoa v. Davis, 50 F.4th ... 865, 888 (9th Cir. 2022) ... required by the Constitution.”) ... Roybal v. Davis , 148 F.Supp.3d 958, 1110 (S.D. Cal ... McDowell , No. 22-CV-0192-GPC-KSC, 2023 WL 27360 at *12 ... n.8 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 3, ... ...