Berry v. Miller-Stout
Filing
4
ORDER of Dismissal. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 5/22/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service). (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/22/2012)
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
LANYARD LEMONT BERRY,
9
Petitioner,
v.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
No. C-12-2210 EMC (pr)
MAGGIE MILLER-STOUT,
12
Respondent.
___________________________________/
13
14
15
16
I.
INTRODUCTION
Lanyard Lemont Berry has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254
17
to obtain relief with regard to an expired conviction that affects the sentence on a new criminal
18
conviction. His petition is now before the Court for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2243 and Rule 4
19
of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases In The United States District Courts.
20
II.
BACKGROUND
21
Berry provides the following information in his petition for writ of habeas corpus. In 1974,
22
he was convicted in Contra Costa County Superior Court of involuntary manslaughter, assault, and
23
unlawful possession of a firearm. He was sentenced to a five year prison term. "Two of his
24
convictions were stayed until he completed his sentence for involuntary manslaughter at which time
25
the stayed convictions became permanently stayed." Docket # 1, p. 5. He apparently served his
26
California sentence. In 1996, Berry was convicted in the State of Washington and was sentenced to
27
life in prison without the possibility of parole. He currently is serving that sentence in a prison in
28
1
Airway Heights, Washington. The Washington court allegedly used the two stayed California
2
convictions for sentence enhancement purposes.
3
In 2010, Berry filed a motion in the Contra Costa County Superior Court requesting
4
dismissal of the "permanently stayed convictions" from 1974. Id. at 4. His motion apparently was
5
rejected, as he later filed an appeal in the California Court of Appeal and a petition for review or
6
writ of habeas corpus in the California Supreme Court.
7
In his federal petition for writ of habeas corpus, Berry asserts that he wants the "permanently
8
stayed convictions [to] be 'formally dismissed' to avoid misinterpretation of the California Law by
9
other Jurisdictions under the Full Faith and Credit Clause for the purpose of three strikes which the
sister State of Washington applied and sentenced Berry to life without parole based on Berry's
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
Permanently Stayed convictions out of California." Id. at 5.
12
13
III.
DISCUSSION
This Court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus "in behalf of a person in
14
custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in
15
violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). A
16
district court considering an application for a writ of habeas corpus shall "award the writ or issue an
17
order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears
18
from the application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto." 28 U.S.C. § 2243.
19
Summary dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are vague or conclusory,
20
palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false. See Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th
21
Cir. 1990).
22
The petition must be dismissed for two separate reasons. The first reason for dismissal is
23
that the petition does not allege a claim cognizable in a federal habeas action. The petition suggests
24
at most that the California courts did not grant Berry relief he allegedly was entitled to under
25
California law. This Court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus "in behalf of a person
26
in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in
27
violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). A
28
2
1
federal court may not grant habeas relief for state law errors. Swarthout v. Cooke, 131 S. Ct. 859,
2
861 (2011).
3
A second and independent reason for dismissal is that Berry is not in custody for the
4
conviction and sentence he is attempting to challenge. The federal writ of habeas corpus is only
5
available to persons "in custody" at the time the petition is filed. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241(c), 2254(a).
6
A habeas petitioner must be in custody under the conviction or sentence under attack at the time the
7
petition is filed. Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 490-91 (1989). Berry was not in custody for the
8
1974 conviction and sentence at the time he filed his federal petition. When an expired conviction is
9
used to enhance a current sentence, the expired conviction generally cannot be challenged unless the
claim is that there was a failure to appoint counsel in violation of the Sixth Amendment in the
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
expired conviction case. See Lackawanna County Dist. Atty. v. Coss, 532 U.S. 394, 403-04 (2001).
12
Berry does not claim he was denied appointment of counsel in the 1974 case, so he does not fit
13
within the limited exception to the general rule that the expired conviction cannot be challenged.
14
The place for Berry to challenge the use of the 1974 convictions for sentence enhancement
15
purposes for his current sentence would be in a court in the State of Washington. He already has
16
brought such a challenge, and has been denied relief by the state courts, as well as in the U.S.
17
District Court for the Western District of Washington in Berry v. Morgan, W. D. Wash. Case No.
18
C03-3696Z, and the Ninth Circuit in Berry v. Morgan, 9th Cir. Case No. 04-35768.
19
IV.
CONCLUSION
20
For the foregoing reasons, the petition is dismissed without leave to amend.
21
Petitioner's application to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. (Docket # 3.)
22
The Clerk shall close the file.
23
IT IS SO ORDERED.
24
25
Dated: May 22, 2012
26
_________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge
27
28
3
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?