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)

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)