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.

Williams v. Hatton

United States District Court, C.D. California

July 25, 2017

Joseph Wayne Williams
v.
Shawn Hatton

          PRESENT HONORABLE KENLY KIYA KATO, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

          CIVIL MINUTES-GENERAL

         Proceedings: (In Chambers) Order to Show Cause Why This Action Should Not Be Dismissed As Untimely [Dkt. 1]

         I. INTRODUCTION

         Petitioner Joseph Wayne Williams (“Petitioner”) has filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”) by a Person in State Custody pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner challenges his conviction and sentence based on the following claims: (1) California's Natural and Probable Consequences Doctrine is a residual clause that increases negligent homicide to murder; (2) the Natural and Probable Consequences Doctrine is based on a surrogate foreseeability rather than a defendant's actual foreseeability and conduct; (3) Natural and Probable Consequences culpability is measured by surrogacy; and (4) the Natural and Probable Consequences Doctrine applies in both Conspiracy and Aiding and Abetting laws. See ECF Docket (“Dkt.”) No. 1, Pet. at 4. However, the Petition appears to be untimely on its face. The Court thus orders Petitioner to show cause why this action should not be dismissed as untimely.

         II. BACKGROUND

         In 2008, Petitioner was convicted of second degree murder in violation of sections 187(a) and 188 of the California Penal Code in Riverside County Superior Court. See Pet. at 1. Petitioner was sentenced to a term of fifteen years to life. Id.

         On June 26, 2009, Petitioner filed a direct appeal at the California Court of Appeal. See California Courts, Appellate Courts Case Information, Docket (July 19, 2017, 1:51 PM) http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/mainCaseScreen.cfm?dist=41&doc id=1940913&doc_no=D057205. On February 23, 2011, the California Court of Appeal affirmed Petitioner's conviction. Id.

         On January 3, 2011, Petitioner filed a petition for review at the California Supreme Court. See California Courts, Appellate Courts Case Information, Docket (July 19, 2017, 1:51 PM) http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/mainCaseScreen.cfm?dist=0&doc_id=19663 76&doc_no=S189433. On February 16, 2011, the California Supreme Court denied the petition. Id.

         On August 4, 2016, Petitioner filed a petition for habeas corpus in the California Supreme Court, which was denied on October 12, 2016. Pet. at 3, 36; see also California Courts, Appellate Courts Case Information, Docket (July 19, 2017, 3:52 PM) http://appellatecases.courtinfo. ca.gov/search/case/mainCaseScreen.cfm?dist=0&doc_id=2150997&doc_no=S236368.

         On November 7, 2016, Petitioner constructively[1] filed the instant Petition.[2] Pet. at 4.

         III.

         DISCUSSION

         A. THE PETITION WAS FILED AFTER AEDPA'S ONE-YEAR LIMITATIONS PERIOD

         Petitioner filed the Petition after April 24, 1996, the effective date of AEDPA. Pet. at 4. Therefore, the requirements for habeas relief set forth in AEDPA apply. Soto v. Ryan, 760 F.3d 947, 956-57 (9th Cir. 2014). AEDPA “sets a one-year limitations period in which a state prisoner must file a federal habeas corpus petition.” Thompson v. Lea, 681 F.3d 1093, 1093 (9th Cir. 2012) (citation omitted). Ordinarily, the limitations period runs from the date on which the prisoner's judgment of conviction “became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1) (“Section 2244(d)(1)”). “When, on direct appeal, review is sought in the state's highest court but no petition for certiorari to the United States Supreme Court is filed, direct review ...


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.