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.

Woodhouse v. Anglea

United States District Court, N.D. California

April 4, 2018

KEITH E. WOODHOUSE, AS0223, Petitioner,
v.
H. B. ANGLEA, Acting Warden, Respondent.

          ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE (ECF NO. 2)

          SALLIE KIM, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         Petitioner, a state prisoner incarcerated at the Sierra Conservation Center in Jamestown, California, has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging a conviction from Santa Clara County Superior Court. He also seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

         The petition is properly before the undersigned for initial review because petitioner has consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

         BACKGROUND

         Petitioner was convicted by a jury of committing 30 lewd acts on a child under the age of 14 years. The jury also found true 30 multiple-victim allegations, one attached to each count, which required alternative sentencing. On November 22, 2013, petitioner was sentenced to 30 years to life in state prison.

         Petitioner unsuccessfully appealed his conviction to the California Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of California. He also unsuccessfully sought habeas relief from the state courts. On January 17, 2018, the Supreme Court of California denied his final state petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

         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. Claims

         Petitioner seeks federal habeas corpus relief on the ground that he “was denied his right to terminate a police interrogation and opt for an attorney's presence.” Pet. (ECF No. 1) at 5, 5a. Liberally construed, the claim appears cognizable under § 2254 and merits an answer from respondent. See Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 484-85 (1981) (suspect who has expressed desire to have counsel present during custodial interrogation is not subject to further interrogation by authorities until counsel is made available to him, unless suspect himself initiates further communication with police); see also Zichko v. Idaho, 247 F.3d 1015, 1020 (9th Cir. 2001) (federal courts must construe pro se petitions for writs of habeas corpus liberally).

         CONCLUSION

         For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown, 1. Petitioner's request to ...


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.