Free Response to Habeas Petition - District Court of California - California

Case 3:08-cv-00787-H-CAB

Document 8

Filed 06/19/2008

Page 1 of 5

1 EDMUND G. BROWN JR. Attorney General of the State of California 2 DANE R. GILLETTE Chief Assistant Attorney General 3 GARY W. SCHONS Senior Assistant Attorney General 4 DANIEL ROGERS Deputy Attorney General 5 KYLE NIKI SHAFFER, State Bar No. 122374 Deputy Attorney General 110 West A Street, Suite 1100 6 San Diego, CA 92101 P.O. Box 85266 7 San Diego, CA 92186-5266 Telephone: (619) 645-2226 8 Fax: (619) 645-2191 Email: [email protected] 9 10 Attorneys for Respondent 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Respondent, Matthew Cate,1/ by and through his counsel, Edmund G. Brown Jr., Attorney v. MATTHEW CATE, Secretary, Respondent. CHRISTOPHER ADAME, Petitioner, ANSWER TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 08cv0787 H (CAB)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

22 General of the State of California, and Kyle Niki Shaffer, Deputy Attorney General, files this Answer 23 24 25 26 27 28 1. Petitioner has improperly named the California Attorney General as a respondent. The Attorney General is not a proper party to this suit, and should be dismissed as a named respondent. Where a habeas corpus petitioner is in custody pursuant to a challenged state-court judgment, the proper responding party is the state officer having custody of the applicant. Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, Rule 2(a). This is the only person who can produce "the body" of the petitioner. Brittingham v. United States, 982 F.2d 378, 379 (9th Cir. 1992). Because Petitioner is already incarcerated for the judgment he challenges, the warden is the proper respondent, and the California Attorney General should be dismissed as a named respondent. Allen v. State of Oregon, 153 F.3d 1046, 1050 (9th Cir. 1998).
ANSWER TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS Case No. 08cv0787 H (CAB)

1

Case 3:08-cv-00787-H-CAB

Document 8

Filed 06/19/2008

Page 2 of 5

1 to the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (the "Petition") pursuant to the Order of this Court filed 2 on May 5, 2008. Respondent alleges as follows: 3 4 I. Petitioner is lawfully in Respondent's custody following his convictions for forcible rape

5 (Cal. Penal Code § 261(a)(2)) (count 1), forcible oral copulation (Cal. Penal Code § 288a(c)) (count 6 2), felony false imprisonment (Cal. Penal Code §§ 236, 237(a)) (count 3), and robbery (Cal. Penal 7 Code § 211) (count 4) of victim Erin. In addition, the jury found Petitioner guilty of a series of 8 offenses against a second victim, Pamela, namely forcible rape (Cal. Penal Code § 261(a)(2)) (count 9 5), forcible oral copulation (Cal. Penal Code § 288a(c)) (count 6), and felony false imprisonment 10 (Cal. Penal Code §§ 236, 237(a)) (count 7). The jury also found Petitioner guilty of assaulting 11 another victim, Roxanne, with a deadly weapon with force likely to cause great bodily injury (Cal. 12 Penal Code § 245(a)(1) (count 8). Finally, with respect to a fourth victim, Stephanie, the jury found 13 Petitioner guilty of receiving stolen property (Cal. Penal Code § 496(a)) (count 11). The jury also 14 found true various sentencing-enhancement allegations. Petitioner's judgment of conviction was 15 entered in the San Diego County Superior Court before the Honorable Laura Hammes in case 16 number SCD 176307 on January 28, 2005, when he was sentenced to 74 years and 8 months to life 17 in state prison. 18 19 II. Petitioner appears to have exhausted his available state-court remedies as to the claims set

20 forth in the instant Petition by presenting the claims to the California Supreme Court in a petition 21 for review. Without waiving the right to require that Petitioner exhaust his remedies, Respondent 22 respectfully requests that this Court deny all of Petitioner's claims on the merits, notwithstanding 23 any failure to exhaust, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2). 24 25 III. The deferential standard of federal habeas corpus review established by the Antiterrorism

26 and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA"), 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), applies to Petitioner's 27 claims. Under this deference standard, Petitioner's claims must be denied without de novo review 28 because the state courts previously rejected Petitioner's claims on the merits. The state courts'
ANSWER TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS Case No. 08cv0787 H (CAB)

2

Case 3:08-cv-00787-H-CAB

Document 8

Filed 06/19/2008

Page 3 of 5

1 findings were neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, United States Supreme Court 2 precedent or the facts presented. 3 4 IV. The state courts made numerous express and implied factual findings. Petitioner has

5 shown no grounds why the presumption of correctness mandated by 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1) should 6 not apply to these factual findings. 7 8 V. Petitioner is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing to resolve his pending claims. 28 U.S.C.

9 § 2254(e). 10 11 VI. The relevant facts and procedural history set forth in the accompanying Memorandum

12 of Points and Authorities are incorporated by reference herein. Except as expressly admitted, 13 Respondent denies each and every allegation of the Petition and specifically denies that Petitioner's 14 confinement is in any way improper, that any condition of Petitioner's confinement is illegal, or that 15 any of his rights has been or is being violated in any way. 16 /// 17 /// 18 /// 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
ANSWER TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS Case No. 08cv0787 H (CAB)

3

Case 3:08-cv-00787-H-CAB

Document 8

Filed 06/19/2008

Page 4 of 5

1

For the reasons set forth more fully in the accompanying Memorandum of Points and

2 Authorities, the Petition should be denied with prejudice, the proceedings dismissed, and any 3 request for certificate of appealability denied. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
ANSWER TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS Case No. 08cv0787 H (CAB)
KNS:sm 80249860.wpd SD2008801153

Dated: June 19, 2008. Respectfully submitted, EDMUND G. BROWN JR. Attorney General of the State of California DANE R. GILLETTE Chief Assistant Attorney General GARY W. SCHONS Senior Assistant Attorney General DANIEL ROGERS Deputy Attorney General s/KYLE NIKI SHAFFER KYLE NIKI SHAFFER Deputy Attorney General Attorneys for Respondent

4

Case 3:08-cv-00787-H-CAB

Document 8

Filed 06/19/2008

Page 5 of 5