Kimble v. Jeanne Woodford
Filing
373
JUDGMENT by Judge Stephen V. Wilson, in favor of Eric Kimble against Jeanne Woodford: The petition for writ of habeas corpus as to the rape murder specialcircumstance finding and sentence of death in the case of People v. Eric DwayneKimble, Case No. A345207 of the California Superior Court for the County of LosAngeles, is hereby GRANTED. The judgment of conviction on the rape murderspecial circumstance, and the sentence of death, shall be VACATED. Please refer to the Court's Judgment for further details. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (cr)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
ERIC KIMBLE,
Petitioner,
13
v.
14
RON DAVIS, Warden of California
State Prison at San Quentin,
15
16
17
18
19
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. CV 90-4826 SVW
DEATH PENALTY CASE
JUDGMENT
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be
CONDITIONALLY GRANTED IN PART, as follows:
20
The petition for writ of habeas corpus as to the rape murder special
21
circumstance finding and sentence of death in the case of People v. Eric Dwayne
22
Kimble, Case No. A345207 of the California Superior Court for the County of Los
23
Angeles, is hereby GRANTED. The judgment of conviction on the rape murder
24
special circumstance, and the sentence of death, shall be VACATED.
25
In all other respects, the petition for writ of habeas corpus is DENIED.
26
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the State of California shall, within 120
27
days from the entry of this Judgment, either grant petitioner a new trial on the rape
28
murder special circumstance, or vacate the rape murder special circumstance
1
finding and death sentence and resentence petitioner in accordance with California
2
law and the United States Constitution.
3
4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 19, 2017
5
STEPHEN V. WILSON
United States District Judge
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?