Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Wofford v. Rivero

United States District Court, Northern District of California

November 3, 2014

JESSICA WOFFORD, Petitioner,
v.
SHERIFF FRANCISCO RIVERO, Respondent

Jessica L. Wofford, Petitioner, Pro se, Lakeport, CA.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

EDWARD J. DAVILA, United States District Judge.

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging her state conviction. Petitioner has paid the filing fee. (Docket No. 5.)

BACKGROUND

According to the petition, Petitioner was found guilty of driving under the influence in violation of Vehicle Code section 23152(a), after a jury trial in Lake County. (Pet. at 2.) Petitioner was sentenced to sixty days in jail. ( Id. at 1.)

Petitioner filed a state petition for writ of habeas corpus in the California Supreme Court which denied review. ( Id. at 4.)

Petitioner filed the instant federal habeas petition on June 18, 2014.

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

This court may entertain a petition for a writ of habeas corpus " in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a).

It shall " award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto." Id. § 2243.

B. Legal Claims

Petitioner claims that not all elements of § 23152(a) were alleged and proven, i.e., the " essential" element of interstate commerce. She also claims that the prosecution failed to enter her DMV record into evidence, which deprived the court of jurisdiction. (Pet. at 5.) Liberally construed, these claims are cognizable under § 2254 as a violation of Petitioner's right to due process and merit an answer from Respondent. See In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 364, 90 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.