United States District Court, C.D. California
ERIC J. WILLIAMS, Petitioner,
DOMINGO URIBE, Warden, Respondent.
ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER
JOSEPHINE L. STATON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
March 14, 2017, Eric J. Williams (“Petitioner”)
filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in
State Custody pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254
(“Petition”). (Dkt. 1.) The Petition is the
second habeas petition that Petitioner has filed challenging
his 2009 convictions for second degree robbery and conspiracy
to commit robbery in the Superior Court for Los Angeles
County, case no. NA076870. (Petition at 3.)
Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the
United States District Courts, a habeas petition filed by a
prisoner in state custody “must” be summarily
dismissed “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition
and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled
to relief in the district court[.]” For the reasons set
forth below, the Petition must be dismissed without prejudice
as a second or successive petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
August 2012, Petitioner filed a habeas petition under 28
U.S.C. § 2254 in this Court, case no.
CV-12-06818-JLS-AN. The Court found as follows:
On December 2, 2009, Eric Jerome Williams
(“Petitioner”) was convicted of two counts of
second degree robbery (CAL. PENAL CODE § 211) and one
count of conspiracy to commit robbery (CAL. PENAL CODE §
182(a)(1)) following a jury trial in the California Superior
Court for Los Angeles County (case no. NA076870). The jury
also found true allegations that, in the commission of both
robberies, Petitioner personally used a handgun (CAL. PENAL
CODE § 12022.53(b)), and that in the commission of one
of the robberies Petitioner also personally and intentionally
discharged a handgun (CAL. PENAL CODE § 12022.53(c)).
Petitioner was acquitted of two counts of attempted murder
and one count each of attempted robbery and robbery.
In a bifurcated proceeding, the jury found true allegations
that the robberies were committed for the benefit of, at the
direction of, or in association with a criminal street gang,
with the specific intent to further, promote, or assist in
criminal conduct by gang members (CAL. PENAL CODE §
186.22(b)(1)). Petitioner was sentenced to a term of 35 years
in state prison.
Petitioner appealed the judgment of conviction to the
California Court of Appeal, raising the first two claims he
raises in the pending Petition. On February 17, 2011, in an
unpublished opinion, the state court of appeal affirmed the
judgment of conviction and rejected Petitioner's claims
on the merits (case no. B221139).
The California Supreme Court denied review of the court of
appeal's decision without comment or citation (case no.
Petitioner subsequently … [filed] a habeas petition
filed with the California Supreme Court, which was denied
without comment or citation (case no. S201966).
Williams v. Bitter, Case No. CV-12-06818-JLS-AN,
Dkt. 19 at 1-2 (report and recommendation) (internal
citations to the record omitted).
the present Petition, the August 2012 petition challenged
Petitioner's 2009 convictions for second degree robbery
and conspiracy to commit robbery, arguing: (1) that the trial
court abused its discretion by admitting gang evidence in a
bifurcated trial; (2) that the trial court deprived him of
his Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause rights; (3) that the
prosecution failed to disclose evidence favorable to the
defense in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S.
83 (1963); (4) that he received ineffective assistance of
counsel on direct appeal because his counsel failed to raise
the Brady claim; (5) that the trial court improperly
sentenced him under California Penal Code § 12022.53(c).
Williams, Case No. CV-12-06818-JLS-AN, Dkt. 19. This
Court denied the petition on September 11, 2013.
Id., Dkt. 22 (order adopting report and
instant Petition raises at least four claims for relief: (1)
Petitioner is actually innocent and there was insufficient
evidence to sustain the convictions (Petition at 2, 6); (2)
Petitioner was “subjected to prosecutorial misconduct,
abuse of process, unlawful attachment and vindictive
prosecution” (Id. at 2); (3) Petitioner's
sentence violated due process (Id.); and (4)
Petitioner was deprived of a fair trial when ...