Ji v. Pennington

Background

Sang Lim Ji, an incarcerated person representing himself, filed a petition for a federal writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He challenged his 2020 conviction for first-degree murder in San Benito County Superior Court. The opinion states that a California appellate court affirmed his conviction and sentence and denied his state habeas petition on May 21, 2023, and that the California Supreme Court later denied review and his state habeas petition on June 14, 2023. Ji filed the federal petition on or about July 11, 2024, and paid the filing fee.

Claims

The petition alleged: (1) insufficient evidence for the first-degree murder conviction; (2) instructional error involving California jury instruction CALCRIM No. 520, which Ji alleged reduced the prosecution’s burden of proof; and (3) ineffective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment. The ineffective-assistance allegations concerned trial counsel’s handling of condom evidence, a motion for acquittal, a witness named Choi, testimony about Ji’s alleged conduct, and other evidence.

Court’s Action

At the initial review stage, the court stated that the petition, read broadly, presented claims that could qualify for federal habeas relief and therefore warranted an answer from the respondent. The court did not decide whether any claim would ultimately succeed.

The clerk was ordered to serve the order and petition. Travis Pennington was ordered to file an answer complying with Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases within 91 days, showing why the writ should not be granted. Instead of an answer, Pennington may file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds within the same 91-day period. If an answer is filed, Ji may file a reply within 35 days; if a motion to dismiss is filed, the opinion sets deadlines for Ji’s opposition or statement of non-opposition and Pennington’s reply. The order also warned that failure to comply with court orders could lead to dismissal for failure to prosecute.