Luckett v. People of State of California

Background

Charles Edward Luckett, an inmate proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging the denial of his California Penal Code § 1172.6 resentencing petition. That provision was formerly numbered § 1170.95. Luckett also argued that certain fees, assessments, and restitution fines should be removed because they were imposed without a hearing on his ability to pay.

Luckett was convicted by a jury in 2015 of murder committed while engaged in attempted robbery, with a firearm-use enhancement. He later sought to vacate the murder conviction and obtain resentencing under California law. The state trial court denied the request after an evidentiary hearing, and the state appellate court affirmed. The California Supreme Court denied review.

In an earlier order in this federal case, the court dismissed the fees-and-assessments claim with prejudice because success on that claim would not affect Luckett’s ability to be released from custody. The court allowed the resentencing-related claim to proceed and stayed the case while a related Ninth Circuit matter was pending. The court later lifted the stay and reopened the case.

Motion to Dismiss

The respondent moved to dismiss the remaining claim for failure to state a cognizable federal habeas claim. The respondent argued that Luckett was challenging only the state court’s interpretation and application of California sentencing law. Luckett responded that the denial of resentencing violated due process because there was insufficient evidence that he acted with the required mental state—reckless indifference to human life.

The court explained that federal habeas relief generally is not available for errors of state law. It also stated that a state court’s misapplication of state sentencing law can violate due process only if the petitioner shows both a state-law error and that the error was so arbitrary or unreasonable that it independently violated due process. A petitioner cannot turn a state-law issue into a federal claim merely by asserting a due-process violation.

The court concluded that Luckett had not shown a state sentencing error or an arbitrary and unreasonable error that violated due process. It noted that the state courts found sufficient evidence that Luckett aided and abetted the attempted robbery, acted with direct intent to kill, was a major participant, and acted with reckless indifference to human life. The evidence cited included his possession and display of a gun, efforts to identify the restaurant manager, and statements urging accomplices to kill the manager if he did not quickly produce cash.

Disposition

The court GRANTED the respondent’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a cognizable federal claim. It DISMISSED the petition with prejudice. The court also DENIED a certificate of appealability because Luckett had not made the required substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied. The order terminated Docket No. 12.