DeShawn L. Davis v. The People of the State of California

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DISMISSING PETITION by Judge Dean D. Pregerson. (see document for further details) 1 . (klg)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

WESTERN DIVISION

11
12

DESHAWN L. DAVIS,

13

Petitioner,

14
15

v.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA,

16
Respondent.
17

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CV 17-3903-DDP(AJW)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
DISMISSING PETITION

18

In 2007, petitioner was convicted of two counts of burglary and

19

sentenced to twelve years in state prison. [Petition at 2]. In 2016,

20

petitioner filed a petition for reduction of his sentence in the

21

California Superior Court pursuant to Proposition 47.1 The Superior

22

Court denied petitioner’s request on April 28, 2016. [Petition at 3].

23

On May 24, 2017, petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas

24

corpus in this Court. The petition challenges the Superior Court’s

25

denial of his request for resentencing. For the following reasons, the

26
27
28

1

Proposition 47, which is codified at section 1170.18 of the California
Penal Code, became effective on November 5, 2014. It permits resentencing
of prisoners who are serving a sentence for a felony conviction if the
offense would have been a misdemeanor if Proposition 47 had been in
effect at the time of the offense. Cal. Penal Code § 1170.18(a).

1

petition is subject to summary dismissal.2

2

Federal habeas corpus relief is available only when a petitioner

3

has been convicted or sentenced in violation of the Constitution,

4

laws, or treaties of the United States; it is not available for errors

5

in the interpretation or application of state law. Swarthout v. Cooke,

6

562 U.S. 216, 219 (2011); Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68

7

(1991). Petitioner does not allege that he has been deprived of any

8

federally protected right. Instead, his claims are based solely upon

9

alleged errors of state law. As a result, the petition fails to state

10

a cognizable federal claim for relief. See Myles v. Rackley, 2016 WL

11

6298408, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 27, 2016) (rejecting Proposition 47

12

claims

13

unavailable for alleged errors in the interpretation or application of

14

state sentencing laws by a state court”), report and recommendation

15

adopted, 2016 WL 7212801 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 12, 2016) ; Adams v. Borders,

16

2016 WL 4523163, at *3 (C.D. Cal. July 29, 2016)(“The fact that

17

Petitioner may be attempting to characterize his claim concerning

18

resentencing under Proposition 47 as a federal constitutional claim

19

...

20

recommendation adopted, 2016 WL 4520906 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 29, 2016).

is

on

not

the

ground

sufficient

that

to

“[f]ederal

render

it

habeas

corpus

cognizable.”),

relief

report

is

and

21

Even if petitioner’s allegations were construed as raising a

22

cognizable federal claim, no such claims have been exhausted. A state

23

prisoner is required to exhaust all available state court remedies

24

before a federal court may grant habeas relief. See 28 U.S.C. §

25
26
2

27
28

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides that “[i]f it
plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the
petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the judge
must dismiss the petition ....”

2

1

2254(b); O'Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 842 (1999). Exhaustion

2

requires that a petitioner “fairly present” his federal claims to the

3

highest state court available. Davis v. Silva, 511 F.3d 1005, 1008

4

(9th Cir. 2008). Petitioner has never presented any claim challenging

5

the denial of resentencing to the California Supreme Court.

6

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for a writ of habeas

7

corpus is dismissed with prejudice. See Givens v. Muniz, 2017 WL

8

387258, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 2017) (dismissing with prejudice a

9

petition challenging the state court’s denial of resentencing under

10

Proposition 47 because such a claim failed to state a cognizable

11

federal claim).3

12

It is so ordered.

13
14

Dated: September 13, 2017

15
16
Dean D. Pregerson
United States District Judge

17
18
19
20
21
3

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

In addition, the Court notes that it appears that petitioner is not
entitled to resentencing under Proposition 47 because the law applies
only to certain drug offenses codified at Cal. Health and Safety Code §§
11350, 11357, and 11377; shoplifting codified at Cal. Penal Code § 459.5;
forgery codified at Cal. Penal Code § 473; fraudulent checks codified at
Cal. Penal Code § 476a; receipt of stolen property codified at Cal. Penal
Code § 496; and petty theft codified at Cal. Penal Code § 666. See Cal.
Penal Code § 1170.18(a); Lopez v. Superior Court of California Cty. of
Los Angeles, 2015 WL 8479227, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2015), report and
recommendation adopted, 2015 WL 8374900 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 2015).
However, the offenses to which petitioner pleaded guilty – two counts of
second degree burglary in violation of section 459 of the California
Penal Code – are not among the enumerated offenses to which Proposition
47 applies.

3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

WESTERN DIVISION

11
12

DESHAWN L. DAVIS,

13
14
15

Petitioner,
v.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA,

16
Respondent.
17

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CV 17-3903-DDP(AJW)

JUDGMENT

18
It is hereby adjudged that the petition for a writ of habeas
19
corpus is dismissed with prejudice.
20
21
Dated: ______________
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

__________________________
Dean D. Pregerson
United States District Judge