Lee v. Jacquez, No. 12-56258 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Petitioner, convicted of first degree murder, appealed the denial of her habeas corpus petition. At issue are eleven claims that the state court found to be procedurally barred under the Dixon rule, which prohibits California state courts from considering habeas claims that should have been raised on direct appeal but were omitted. The court held that the state failed to meet its burden of proving the Dixon bar’s adequacy at the time of petitioner's
procedural default where the only evidence was that the Dixon bar was applied to between seven and twenty-one percent of all habeas cases filed in the months surrounding petitioner's default. Such a statistic, without more, is incomplete. Because a state procedural rule must be both independent and adequate to prevent federal habeas review, the court need not decide whether Dixon is an independent state law ground. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment of the district court denying the habeas corpus petition.
Court Description: Habeas Corpus. The panel reversed the district court’s denial of California state prisoner Donna Kay Lee’s habeas corpus petition challenging her first-degree murder convictions and remanding for the district court to consider Lee’s claims on the merits. The district court found that Ex parte Dixon, 264 P.2d 513 (Cal. 1953), which prohibits California state courts from considering habeas claims that should have been raised on direct appeal but were omitted, is an adequate and independent state law procedural rule that bars federal review of Lee’s claims. Assuming without deciding that Dixon is an independent state law rule, the panel held that the state has failed to meet its burden of demonstrating the Dixon bar’s adequacy at the time of Lee’s procedural default. The panel wrote that where the state endorsed a statistical analysis to demonstrate a rule’s adequacy, and the panel is left only with evidence that the Dixon bar was applied to between seven and twenty-one percent of all habeas cases filed in the months surrounding Lee’s default, the state failed to meet its burden of proving that the Dixon bar was adequate. LEE V. JACQUEZ 3
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on September 6, 2016.
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.