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
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?