Eileen Huber v. A. De La Cruz

Filing 7

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED by Magistrate Judge Alicia G. Rosenberg. The court orders Petitioner to show cause, on or before June 13, 2024, why the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus should not be dismissed for failure to state a cognizable ground for relief. (see document for further details) (hr)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

EILEEN HUBER,
Petitioner,

13
14
15
16

A. DE LA CRUZ, Warden,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

NO. CV 24-3305-HDV (AGR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY
PETITION FOR WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS SHOULD
NOT BE DISMISSED

17
18

Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State

19

Custody (“Petition”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging the state court’s

20

denial of her petition for resentencing under Cal. Penal Code § 1172.6. On the

21

face of the Petition, it appears that the sole ground for relief is not cognizable on

22

federal habeas review. The court orders Petitioner to show cause, in writing, on

23

or before June 13, 2024, why the Petition should not be dismissed.

24

I.

25

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

26

A jury found Petitioner guilty of the first degree murders of Avina, Sams and

27

Denogean as described below along with conspiracy to commit murder and other

28

1

crimes. (Petition, Dkt. No. 1 at 2.)1 For each murder count, the jury found true

2

robbery-murder and lying-in-wait special circumstance allegations. The jury also

3

found true kidnapping-murder special circumstance allegations (Sams and

4

Denogean murders) and a multiple murder special circumstance allegation

5

(Denogean murder). Petitioner was sentenced to three concurrent terms of life in

6

prison without the possibility of parole. People v. Huber, 2023 Cal. App. Unpub.

7

LEXIS 7196, *6-*7 (Dec. 1, 2023). The California Court of Appeal affirmed the

8

judgment with modifications. Id. at *7.

9

In 2019, Petitioner filed a petition for resentencing under Cal. Penal Code §

10

1170.95 (now § 1172.6). The Superior Court denied the petition without

11

appointing counsel or holding an evidentiary hearing. The California reversed

12

with instructions to appoint counsel and follow the procedure in § 1170.95.

13

People v. Huber, 2020 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 8665 (Dec. 30, 2020).

14

On remand, the Superior Court appointed counsel (Petitioner’s former trial

15

counsel), held an evidentiary hearing, and denied the petition. The court

16

admitting the court file, which included the trial transcripts. On December 1,

17

2023, the California Court of Appeal affirmed. People v. Huber, 2023 Cal. App.

18

Unpub. LEXIS 7196, *8-*14 (Dec. 1, 2023). The California Supreme Court

19

denied a petition for review. People v. Huber, 2024 Cal. LEXIS 630 (Feb. 14,

20

2014).

21
22

Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in this court on April 17,
2024. (Petition, Dkt. No. 1.)

23

II.

24

STATE COURT DECISION

25

A.

Statement of Facts

26

The California Court of Appeal set forth the following facts on appeal from

27
28

1

Because the Petition is not consecutively paginated, the court cites the
page numbers assigned by CM/ECF in the header of the document.
2

1

denial of resentencing. Huber, 2023 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 7196, at *2-*6.

2

“In November 1991, in a 27-count indictment, [Petitioner], her boyfriend

3

John Lewis (Lewis), his sister Robbin Machuca (Machuca), and her boyfriend

4

Vincent Hubbard (Hubbard) were charged with committing a host of crimes

5

between July 5 and August 27, 1991: murder, robbery, kidnapping for robbery,

6

kidnapping, receiving stolen property, and conspiracy to commit the

7

aforementioned felonies. Defendant was specifically charged, among other

8

things, with the murder of Jose Avina (Avina), Willie Newton Sams (Sams), and

9

Shirley Denogean (Denogean).

10

A.

Evidence at Trial Regarding [Petitioner’s] Role in the Murders of
Avina, Sams, and Denogean

11
12

1.

Avina’s Murder

13

In the summer of 1991, [Petitioner], Lewis, Machuca, and Hubbard were

14

living together in an apartment in West Covina, California. On the night of July 5,

15

1991, [Petitioner] and Lewis set out to ‘go make some money.’

16

The plan was for [Petitioner] and Lewis to drive around in her vehicle, along

17

with two accomplices in another vehicle, and look for a victim whose automobile

18

was loaded with ‘a lot of stuff . . . that could be sold.’ After identifying a suitable

19

victim, the plotters would ‘bump’ the victim’s car and force him or her to pull over

20

to the side of the road. As [Petitioner] later explained to the police, if the victim

21

cooperated, he or she ‘wouldn’t be harmed’; if the victim did not cooperate,

22

though, the conspirators would ‘shoot him.’

23

When they set out that night, Lewis, as was his custom, was armed (with a

24

sawed-off shotgun on this occasion). After a time, the plotters spotted Avina’s

25

red truck, which looked like it was ‘worth some money’ and had ‘some gadgets in

26

it.’ The two-car convoy of conspirators followed Avina’s truck onto and then off a

27

freeway. When a ‘bump’ to the rear of Avina’s vehicle by the accomplices’

28

vehicle failed to bring the truck to a stop, the collaborators hemmed Avina in – the
3

1

accomplices’ vehicle alongside the truck and [Petitioner’s] couple behind it.

2

Eventually, Avina pulled his truck over in a dark residential area of

3

Monrovia. With the truck idling near a stop sign, Lewis exited [Petitioner’s] and

4

confronted Avina, telling him to get out of the truck. When Avina refused and

5

attempted to drive away, Lewis fatally shot him in the head. The truck climbed

6

the curb, rolled onto a lawn, and came to a stop short of a house. Once the truck

7

stopped, Lewis pulled Avina’s body from the truck ‘dumped’ it on the grass, and

8

climbed into [the] truck’s cab.

9

[Petitioner] followed Lewis (driving Avina’s truck) to the home of one of the

10

accomplices. Once there, they stripped the truck’s interior of a stereo, an

11

amplifier, a set of ‘big’ speakers, and a collection of compact discs. Lewis then

12

drove the truck to Pomona, again followed by [Petitioner] in her vehicle, which is

13

where they abandoned it.

14

2.

15

On the night of August 18, 1991, Sams was robbed at gunpoint at an

16

automatic teller machine (ATM) and then driven in his automobile to another ATM

17

and forced to withdraw more money from his account. From the second ATM,

18

Sams was driven to a third location, a middle school, where he was forced into a

19

dumpster and then shot multiple times by two different guns.[FN2] Sams’

20

automobile was found a few days later at a shopping mall with the doors open

21

and its radio missing.

22

Sams’ Murder

FN2 . . . [B]efore Sams’ murder, the home of

23

[Petitioner’s] father was burglarized. The burglars

24

stole ammunition and a number of firearms from

25

the father’s gun collection, including a Ruger .357

26

Magnum pistol (the Ruger). Prior to the burglary,

27

[Petitioner] had been heard to talk repeatedly

28

about stealing firearms from her father’s collection
4

1

– saying at one point in Lewis’s presence that they

2

should ‘take the guns from my Dad’s house.’

3

On the night of Sams’ murder, [Petitioner], Lewis, and Hubbard were seen

4

by a witness leaving ‘at the same time.’ Both Lewis and Hubbard later confessed

5

to shooting Sams even though he complied with all of their demands.

6

[Petitioner’s] fingerprint was found on one of the weapons used to kill Sams: the

7

Ruger stolen from her father’s home. [Petitioner,] after initially denying any role in

8

Sams’ murder, confessed to being ‘involved’ and affirmed she ‘went out on that

9

one.’ She also admitted that shortly after the murder she had used Sams’ ATM

10

card to withdraw $60 from his account.

11

3.

Denogean’s Murder

12

On August 27, 1991, Lewis and [Petitioner] drove to the Puente Hills Mall in

13

[Petitioner’s] vehicle to look for a robbery victim.[FN3] Lewis was armed with the

14

stolen Ruger and had brought with him plastic ties to restrain the victim.

15

FN3 Three days earlier, Lewis had driven to the same

16

shopping mall and kidnapped Elizabeth Nisbet;

17

after withdrawing funds from her bank account at

18

two different ATMs, Lewis murdered her by the

19

side of a freeway. One day later, Lewis gave

20

Nisbet’s wedding ring to [Petitioner] as an

21

engagement ring.

22

As they drove through the mall’s parking lot, they saw Denogean driving

23

alone in her Mercedes. [Petitioner] parked next to Denogean’s vehicle and she

24

and Lewis watched Denogean walk into the mall and waited for her return.

25

When Denogean returned a short time later, Lewis forced himself inside her

26

Mercedes and bound her hands. [Petitioner] obtained Denogean’s bank card and

27

personal identification number (PIN) and drove Lewis and Denogean in her

28

Mercedes to several ATMs, where [Petitioner] withdrew a total of $500 from
5

1

Denogean’s bank account. They then returned to the mall where [Petitioner],

2

driving her vehicle, followed Lewis and Denogean in the Mercedes onto a

3

freeway. On the shoulder of the freeway near an off-ramp, the two cars parked;

4

Lewis then led Denogean down an embankment where he shot her multiple times

5

with the Ruger.

6

After the shooting, [Petitioner] followed Lewis in the Mercedes to a location

7

where they wiped the Mercedes of their fingerprints before driving to a second

8

location where they abandoned the vehicle. Later that same day, [Petitioner] took

9

a portion of the funds stolen from Denogean’s bank account and and went

10

shopping. Early the next morning, she went to an ATM and withdrew an

11

additional $200 from Denogean’s bank account.

12

Following the arrest of [Petitioner], Lewis, and Machuca on August 30,

13

1991, a police officer overheard and recorded some of the statements defendants

14

made to each other while locked in holding cells. When Lewis observed that

15

[Petitioner] had participated in the killing of three victims, [Petitioner] did not deny

16

or otherwise contradict him. After Machuca remarked that ‘at least’ they had ‘fun’

17

committing their crimes, [Petitioner] said she ‘would do it all over again.’”

18

B.

19

The California Court of Appeal affirmed denial of the petition for

20
21

Appellate Court Decision

resentencing.
Effective January 1, 2019, Senate Bill 1437 amended the felony murder

22

rule and the natural and probable consequences doctrine as it relates to murder

23

“to ensure that murder liability is not imposed on a person who is not the actual

24

killer, did not act with the intent to kill, or was not a major participant in the

25

underlying felony who acted with reckless indifference to human life.” People v.

26

Lewis, 11 Cal. 5th 952, 959 (2021).

27
28

“Senate Bill 1437 does not eliminate direct aiding and abetting liability for
murder because a direct aider and abettor to murder must possess malice
6

1

aforethought.” People v. Gentile, 10 Cal. 5th 830, 848 (2020). Under California

2

law, murder is “the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought.”

3

Cal. Penal Code § 187(a). Malice may be express or implied. Cal. Penal Code §

4

188(a). Malice “is express when there is a manifest intent to kill (§ 188, subd.

5

(a)(1)); it is implied if someone kills with ‘no considerable provocation . . . or when

6

the circumstances attending the killing show an abandoned and malignant heart.’

7

(§ 188, subd. (a)(2)).” Gentile, 10 Cal. 5th at 844. The intent to kill may be

8

“inferred from the defendant’s acts and the circumstances of the crime.” People

9

v. Smith, 37 Cal. 4th 733, 741 (2005).

10

On a petition for resentencing, the prosecution bears the burden of proving,

11

beyond a reasonable doubt, that the petitioner is guilty of murder under California

12

law as amended by Senate Bill 1437. See Cal. Penal Code § 1172.6(d)(3). The

13

court considers the evidence admitted at trial that is admissible under current law,

14

as well as any new or additional evidence offered by either side. Id.

15

At Petitioner’s resentencing hearing, the court had reviewed the trial

16

transcripts. Neither the prosecution nor the defense offered new or additional

17

evidence. Huber, 2023 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 7196, at *1-*2, *8.

18

The California Court of Appeal concluded that Petitioner is ineligible for

19

resentencing. Id. at *11-*12. “The evidence at trial amply established [Petitioner]

20

could be convicted under current law as a direct aider and abettor for the three

21

murders in question.” Id. at *8 (footnote omitted). The evidence raised a

22

reasonable inference that Petitioner knew of the actual killer’s intent to kill and

23

“intended to assist in achieving that unlawful end.” Id. at *9. The court reasoned

24

as follows:

25

[Petitioner’s] own admissions established she

26

intended Avina to be shot if he resisted the planned

27

robbery, which he did by first refusing to pull over and

28

then attempting to flee when Lewis threatened him with
7

1

the sawed-off shotgun. [Petitioner] was present for the

2

murder and made it possible by driving an armed Lewis

3

to the scene. Further, after Lewis shot Avina in the head,

4

[Petitioner] assisted with the completion of the robbery-

5

murder by following Lewis, who was driving Avina’s truck,

6

to one location where the truck was plundered, and then

7

to another where it was abandoned.

8

After the Avina murder, [Petitioner] and her

9

partners in crime began killing (or attempting to kill) their

10

identified robbery victims regardless of whether the

11

victims resisted.

12

Sams was killed with [Petitioner’s] assistance even

13

though he had not resisted and had cooperated with his

14

kidnappers by surrendering his PIN to them. [Petitioner]

15

was seen in the company of Lewis and Hubbard prior to

16

the shooting, the shooting was accomplished with at

17

least one weapon obtained from the burglary of

18

[Petitioner’s] father’s home and with [Petitioner’s]

19

fingerprint on it, [Petitioner] admitted she was “involved”

20

with the murder and “went out on that one,” and

21

[Petitioner] used Sams’ bank card to withdraw money

22

after the murder. In view of this evidence and

23

[Petitioner’s] role in the preceding and subsequent

24

crimes (including the robbery and attempted killing of

25

Valdez), the trial court could reasonably infer [Petitioner]

26

intended to kill Sams, knew of Lewis’s plan to do the

27

same, and intended to facilitate that plan.

28

As for victim Denogean, [Petitioner] played a
8

1

critical role in the kidnaping-murder. She acted as a

2

victim-spotter, ATM-thief, and get-away driver for Lewis.

3

Denogean, like Sams, was executed despite her

4

cooperation with her kidnappers – and she was killed

5

with a weapon [Petitioner] helped acquire. After

6

[Petitioner’s] arrest a few days after the murder,

7

[Petitioner] expressed no remorse over any of the

8

killings; instead, she stated that if she had the chance

9

she would do it all over again. The evidence concerning

10

the Denogean crimes was accordingly sufficient to

11

support the trial court’s finding that [Petitioner] knew of

12

Lewis’s murderous intent and intended to assist in

13

achieving that unlawful end.

14

Id. at *12-*13.

15

III.

16

DISCUSSION

17

Federal habeas corpus relief is available only when a petitioner has been

18

convicted or sentenced in violation of the Constitution, laws or treaties of the

19

United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). Relief is not available for errors in the

20

interpretation or application of state law. See Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. 216,

21

219 (2011); Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67–68 (1991).

22

Petitioner’s sole ground for relief asserts that the state court erred in finding

23

her ineligible for resentencing. Whether a petitioner is eligible for or entitled to

24

resentencing under Cal. Penal Code § 1172.6 (formerly § 1170.95) is an issue of

25

state law and does not give rise to a claim cognizable on federal habeas review.

26

See Bowen v. Samuels, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53056, *2-*3 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 25,

27

2024) (“Whether [petitioner] is entitled to resentencing under § 1170.95 is a

28

question of state law and is not cognizable on federal habeas review.”); Walker v.
9

1

Cal. Sup. Ct., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 191025, *4-*5 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 13, 2022)

2

(same); Mays v. Montgomery, 2021 WL 2229082, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 22, 2021)

3

(collecting cases), accepted by 2021 WL 2223276 (C.D. Cal. June 1, 2021); Cole

4

v. Sullivan, 480 F. Supp. 3d 1089, 1097 (C.D. Cal. 2020) (collecting cases).

5

An error of state law alone does not state a federal due process violation.

6

Rivera v. Illinois, 556 U.S. 148, 158 (2009). A habeas petitioner “may not . . .

7

transform a state-law issue into a federal one merely by asserting a violation of

8

due process.” Langford v. Day, 110 F.3d 1380, 1389 (9th Cir. 1996).

9

“[O]therwise, every erroneous decision by a state court on state law would come

10

here as a federal constitutional question.” Little v. Crawford, 449 F.3d 1075, 1083

11

n.6 (9th Cir. 2006).

12

III.

13

ORDER

14

Therefore, the court orders Petitioner to show cause, on or before June 13,

15

2024, why the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus should not be dismissed for

16

failure to state a cognizable ground for relief. If Petitioner does not respond to

17

this Order to Show Cause, the Petition may be dismissed.

18
19
20
21

DATED: May 13, 2024

ALICIA G. ROSENBERG
United States Magistrate Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

10