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. Davey

United States District Court, N.D. California

November 4, 2019

WILLIE WILLIAMS, Petitioner,
v.
DAVEY, Respondent.

          ORDER DISMISSING CLAIM 1 AND SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR REMAINING CLAIMS DOCKET NO. 28

          Edward M. Chen United States District Judge

         I. INTRODUCTION

         Willie Williams filed this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 to challenge his 2010 conviction from the Alameda County Superior Court. Respondent now moves to dismiss an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim as procedurally defaulted. Mr. Williams opposes the motion. For the reasons discussed below, the Court concludes that the claim is procedurally defaulted and dismisses it. The Court also sets a briefing schedule for Mr. Williams' four remaining claims.

         II. BACKGROUND

         Following a jury trial in Alameda County Superior Court in 2010, Mr. Williams was convicted of first degree murder with the special circumstance of a murder committed during a robbery. He was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. See Docket No. 13 at 6 (Cal.Ct.App. opinion at 1).

         He appealed. On October 1, 2012, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment of conviction. The California Supreme Court denied the petition for review on January 16, 2013.

         Mr. Williams filed this federal habeas action on January 8, 2014. On September 21, 2015, the Court stayed the action so that Mr. Williams could exhaust state court remedies as to an unexhausted claim. Docket No. 18.

         Mr. Williams thereafter filed several state habeas petitions. On October 29, 2015, he filed a habeas petition in the California Court of Appeal. That court denied the petition a week later with directions to first seek relief in the superior court. See Docket No. 28 at 6.

         On December 10, 2015, Mr. Williams filed a habeas petition in the Alameda County Superior Court. That petition was denied on February 8, 2016, because the ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims were untimely and the claims for trial errors should have been brought on appeal. See Docket No. 20 at 2-4.

         On May 9, 2016, Mr. Williams filed another habeas petition in the Alameda County Superior Court. That petition was denied on June 17, 2016, because it raised the same claims that had been raised in the habeas petition filed on December 10, 2015. See Docket No. 29 at 17.

         More than two years later, on August 24, 2018, Mr. Williams filed a habeas petition in the California Supreme Court. The California Supreme Court denied the petition on February 27, 2019, in an order that stated, in its entirety: “The petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied. (See In re Robbins (1998) 18 Cal.4th 770, 780 [courts will not entertain habeas corpus claims that are untimely]).” Docket No. 26 at 3 (brackets in original).

         Mr. Williams then returned to federal court, where he moved to lift the stay and filed a second amended petition on March 18, 2019. Docket No. 26. On April 16, 2019, the Court lifted the stay, deemed the second amended petition to be an amendment to the amended petition (so that the two documents are read together, rather than the former superseding the latter), and dismissed certain new ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims for failure to state a cognizable claim for habeas relief. Docket No. 27. With the dismissal of those new claims, the following five claims remain for adjudication: (1) Mr. Williams received ineffective assistance of counsel in that his lawyer (a) did not contact witnesses to ask them about coming in contact with someone named “Mr. Campbell, ” see Docket No. 10 at 5, and (b) failed to request an instruction on voluntary intoxication as applied to the special circumstance, see Docket No. 10-1 at 36; (2) the failure to instruct on manslaughter and imperfect defense of others violated Mr. Williams' Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process; (3) the trial court's failure to provide correct instructions on the special circumstance violated Mr. Williams' Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process, see Docket # 10-1 at 36; (4) the admission of the codefendant's hearsay statements violated Mr. Williams' Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to confront witnesses; and (5) Mr. Williams' right to due process was violated because the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction under the felony murder rule.

         Respondent now moves to dismiss as procedurally defaulted Claim 1, i.e., the claim that Mr. Williams received ineffective assistance of counsel (“IAC”) in that his lawyer did not contact witnesses to ask them about coming in contact with Mr. Campbell and failed to request an instruction on voluntary intoxication as applied to the special circumstance. Respondent contends that the California Supreme Court's February 27, 2019, rejection of the petition with a citation to Robbins imposed a procedural bar under state law that results in a procedural default here.

         III. ...


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.