Mims v. Lewis

Filing 10

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, Certificate of Appealability Denied. Signed by Judge William Alsup on 2/6/13. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(dt, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/7/2013)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 11 12 Jonathan Dante MIMS, Petitioner, 13 NONCAPITAL HABEAS ACTION ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS v. 14 15 Case Number 3-12-cv-589-WHA-PR Gary SWARTHOUT, Warden of California State Prison at Solano,1 16 Respondent. 17 18 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. He petitions for a writ of habeas corpus. 19 Petitioner was convicted of, inter alia, carjacking. His sole claim is that his carjacking 20 conviction is not supported by sufficient evidence. 21 The California Penal Code provides in relevant part, “‘Carjacking’ is the felonious taking 22 of a motor vehicle in the possession of another, from his or her person or immediate presence . . . 23 against his or her will and with the intent to either permanently or temporarily deprive the person 24 in possession of the motor vehicle of his or her possession, accomplished by means of force or 25 fear.” Cal. Penal Code § 215(a) (emphasis added). 26 The relevant facts are not disputed: half a block down the street from his victim’s car, 27 1 28 Gary Swarthout is automatically substituted for his counterpart at Pelican Bay State Prison pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d). (See Doc. No. 5.) Case No. 3-12-cv-589-WHA-PR ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (DPSAGOK) 1 Petitioner used a gun to take his victim’s car keys from her, and then he took her car. (Doc. No. 2 1 at 10–11); People v. Mims, No. A125155, 2010 WL 3231518, at *1–2 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 17, 3 2010). Petitioner argues that half a block away is too far away to be his victim’s “immediate 4 presence,” as required by the statutory definition of carjacking. However, in considering 5 Petitioner’s claim on appeal, the California Court of Appeal correctly determined that half a 6 bock is not too far away to qualify as a carjacking victim’s immediate presence. Id., at *3. The 7 Supreme Court of the United States has “repeatedly held that a state court’s interpretation of 8 state law, including one announced on direct appeal of the challenged conviction, binds a federal 9 court sitting in habeas corpus.” Bradshaw v. Richey, 546 U.S. 74, 76 (2005). Accordingly, the 10 undisputed evidence that Petitioner took his victim’s car half a block away from where he took 11 his victim’s car keys directly from her is sufficient to sustain Petitioner’s conviction for taking 12 his victim’s motor vehicle from her immediate presence. 13 14 * * * In accordance with the foregoing discussion, and good cause appearing therefor, the 15 Court denies the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and declines to issue a certificate of 16 appealability. The Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of Respondent and close the file. 17 18 It is so ordered. 19 20 DATED: February 6, 2013 __________________________________ WILLIAM H. ALSUP United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 Case No. 3-12-cv-589-WHA-PR ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (DPSAGOK)

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?