Matthew Williams v. G. D. Lewis, No. 5:2013cv00146 - Document 21 (C.D. Cal. 2013)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh. The Petition is DENIED and the action is DISMISSED with prejudice. Further, the Court finds that Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right and, therefore, a certificate of appealability is DENIED. (See Order for complete details) (afe)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 MATTHEW WILLIAMS, Petitioner, 11 12 13 v. G.D. LEWIS, WARDEN, 14 Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. ED CV 13-146-PJW MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 15 Before the Court is a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant 16 17 to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 18 denied and the action is dismissed with prejudice. For the reasons set forth below, the Petition is 19 I. 20 SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS 21 22 A. State Court Proceedings On August 30, 2011, in San Bernardino County Superior Court, 23 Petitioner pled guilty to voluntary manslaughter and assault with a 24 firearm. 25 the commission of the offenses. 26 a plea agreement, he was sentenced to 21 years in prison. 27 No. 1 at 34.) 28 2012, he filed a habeas corpus petition in the California Supreme He also admitted that he had personally used a firearm in (Lodgment No. 1 at 34.) Petitioner did not appeal. Pursuant to (Lodgment Instead, on September 4, 1 Court, which was denied on November 14, 2012. 2 Thereafter, on January 18, 2013, he filed a habeas corpus petition in 3 the California Court of Appeal, which was denied on February 4, 2013. 4 (Lodgment Nos. 4, 5.) 5 B. 6 (Lodgment Nos. 2, 3.) Federal Court Proceedings On January 24, 2013, Petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed a 7 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in this court, claiming that the 8 trial court unlawfully imposed an upper-term sentence without setting 9 forth a statement of facts and reasons on the record for doing so, in 10 violation of state law and Cunningham v. California, 549 U.S. 270, 11 274-75 (2007). 12 Memorandum of Points and Authorities ( Pet. Memo. ) at 2.) 13 claimed that his resulting 21-year sentence was cruel and unusual, 14 in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitu- 15 tion. (Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus ( Petition ) at 5; He also (Pet. Memo. at 8.) 16 II. 17 STATEMENT OF FACTS 18 There was no preliminary hearing (or trial) in this case because 19 Petitioner pled guilty at an early stage. The following factual 20 statement was taken verbatim from the Probation Officer s Report: On 07/10/10 there was a house party on Briarwood in 21 22 Fontana. There were two young men acting as bouncers at the 23 door. 24 because they had not been invited. 25 away, they remained in the street in front of the house. 26 what was described as an amiable exchange between the 27 bouncers and the group, the group left. 28 minutes later, the same group returned to Briarwood. They turned away a group of young men at the door 2 After the group was turned After Approximately five There was 1 what was described as a barrage of gunfire that appeared to 2 come from two or three different guns. 3 getting shot: Victim 1 was shot in the head and died at the 4 scene. 5 were shot in the legs. 6 sitting in his car in the driveway. 7 his car was covered with bullet holes. 8 9 Three people ended up Victims 2 and 3 were standing in the front yard and There was a fourth victim who was He was not wounded, but Through their investigation, and in cooperation with Rialto PD and the FBI, Fontana PD officers learned that the 10 shooting was gang-related and involved NAW gang members and 11 Hustler Squad members. 12 confidential informant, who identified [Petitioner] as the 13 shooter who shot Victim 1. 14 Officers were put in touch with a On 10/15/10, [Petitioner] was contacted by police during a 15 gang warrant sweep. 16 homicide investigation. 17 [Petitioner] admitted to having a .45 caliber gun, being in the 18 street in front of the house, and shooting at the house. 19 [Petitioner] claimed that he was returning fire, and was 20 shooting in self-defense. 21 22 He agreed to talk to the police about the Over the course of the interview, [Petitioner] was then arrested. (Lodgment No. 1 at 38.) Petitioner was initially charged with one count of murder and 23 three counts of attempted murder. 24 was also alleged that he intentionally discharged a firearm that 25 caused great bodily injury in the commission of the crimes. 26 No. 1 at 39.) 27 murder and attempted murder charges and allowed Petitioner to plead 28 guilty to voluntary manslaughter and assault with a firearm. (Lodgment No. 1 at 1-6, 38.) It (Lodgment In exchange for his plea, the prosecution dropped the 3 1 III. 2 STANDARD OF REVIEW 3 4 The standard of review in federal habeas proceedings is set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2254: 5 An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a 6 person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court 7 shall not be granted with respect to any claim that was 8 adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings unless 9 the adjudication of the claim-- 10 (1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or 11 involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established 12 Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United 13 States; or 14 (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an 15 unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the 16 evidence presented in the State court proceeding. 17 18 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). Here, there is no reasoned state court decision with respect to 19 Petitioner s claims. 20 his habeas petition in the state supreme court. 21 claims by citation to People v. Duvall, 9 Cal.4th 464, 474 (1995); In 22 re Dixon, 41 Cal.2d 756, 759 (1953); and In re Swain, 34 Cal.2d 300, 23 304 (1949). 24 mean that Petitioner s claims are procedurally barred. 25 Points and Authorities in Support of Answer at 8-9.) 26 instance, because it is easier to address the merits than the 27 procedural issues, the Court has chosen to bypass the procedural 28 default issue. Petitioner first raised the instant claims in (Lodgment No. 3.) That court denied the Respondent argues that these citations (Memorandum of In this See Lambrix v. Singletary, 520 U.S. 518, 524-25 4 1 (1997)( We do not mean to suggest that the procedural-bar issue must 2 invariably be resolved first [given constraints of judicial 3 economy] ); Franklin v. Johnson, 290 F.3d 1223, 1232 (9th Cir. 2002). 4 Because the state courts did not reach the merits of Petitioner s 5 claim, the Court must conduct a de novo review of the claims to 6 determine if a constitutional violation occurred. 7 556 U.S. 449, 472 (2009) ( Because the [state] courts did not reach 8 the merits of [Petitioner's] claim, federal habeas review is not 9 subject to the deferential standard that applies under [28 U.S.C. 10 § 2254(d)]. . . Instead, the claim is reviewed de novo. ). 11 IV. 12 13 See Cone v. Bell, DISCUSSION A. The Trial Court s Imposition of an Upper-Term Sentence Was 14 Constitutional 15 Petitioner contends that the trial court erroneously sentenced 16 him to the upper-term sentence on both the attempted murder conviction 17 and the use of a firearm allegation without filing a statement of 18 reasons four days in advance of sentencing -which is required under 19 state law. 20 the Supreme Court s mandate in Cunningham. 21 the following reasons, this claim is rejected. 22 He argues that, in failing to do so, the court violated (Pet. Memo. at 2-7.) For Petitioner acknowledges, but fails to recognize the significance 23 of the fact that, in the wake of Cunningham, the California 24 legislature amended the state sentencing law in March 2007 to allow 25 trial judges the discretion to sentence defendants to the upper term. 26 Petitioner pled guilty and was sentenced in August 2011, long after 27 the new law took effect, and, therefore, the trial court s upper-term 28 sentence did not violate the Constitution. 5 See, e.g., Juarez v. 1 Allison, 2011 WL 3654449, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 22, 2011) (finding 2 the upper term is the statutory maximum under revised law); Cal. 3 Penal Code § 1170(b) (as amended, effective March 30, 2007). 4 Furthermore, even without the change in the state law, Petitioner s 5 sentence would not have run afoul of Cunningham because it was 6 pursuant to a plea agreement, which takes it out of the bounds of 7 Cunningham. 8 Sept. 30, 2011); see also Russell v. Martel, 2011 WL 6817690, at *5 9 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2011) (holding Supreme Court has never held that an See Graves v. Salazar, 2011 WL 6942080, at *6 (C.D. Cal. 10 upper-term sentence imposed pursuant to a plea agreement violates 11 Cunningham). 12 exchange for the prosecution s agreement to drop a murder charge and 13 three attempted murder charges, the trial court was not bound by the 14 mandates of Cunningham. 15 Because Petitioner agreed to a sentence of 21 years in Finally, Petitioner contends that his 21-year prison sentence 16 constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. 17 The Eighth Amendment, which forbids cruel and unusual punishments, 18 contains a narrow proportionality principle that applies to noncapital 19 sentences. 20 omitted). 21 disproportionate to the crime are forbidden. 22 that is consistent with state law is unconstitutional only when a 23 threshold comparison of the crime committed and the sentence imposed 24 leads to an inference of gross disproportionality. 25 it clearly does not. 26 and assault with a firearm, crimes that caused the death of one person 27 and gunshot wounds to two others. 28 brushed aside constitutional challenges in cases involving much less This argument is rejected. Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11, 20 (2003) (citation In noncapital cases, only sentences that are grossly Id. at 23. A sentence Id. at 30. Here, Petitioner pled guilty to voluntary manslaughter The United States Supreme Court has 6 1 serious offenses. See, e.g., Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 994- 2 95 (1991) (rejecting Eighth Amendment challenge to mandatory life term 3 without possibility of parole for possession of 672 grams of cocaine 4 by petitioner with no prior felony convictions); see also Windham v. 5 Merkle, 163 F.3d 1092, 1106 (9th Cir. 1998) (affirming denial of 6 Eighth Amendment challenge to fifteen-years-to-life sentence for 7 aiding and abetting second-degree murder). 8 constitutional error in Petitioner s sentence. Accordingly, there was no 9 V. 10 CONCLUSION 11 For these reasons, the Petition is denied and the action is 12 dismissed with prejudice. 13 has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional 14 right and, therefore, a certificate of appealability is denied. 15 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 16 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003). Further, the Court finds that Petitioner 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 July 23, 2013 DATED:_____________, 2013 19 20 21 PATRICK J. WALSH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 S:\PJW\Cases-State Habeas\WILLIAMS, M 146\memo opinion.wpd 7 See
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
