Towner v. Silva

Background

Jeremy M. Towner, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The petition concerns his resentencing proceedings in Santa Cruz County Superior Court. The court found that venue was proper in the Northern District of California because Santa Cruz County is in that district.

In 2001, Towner pleaded no contest to second-degree murder and robbery and was sentenced to 15 years to life in prison. In 2020, he sought resentencing under a California statute that was later renumbered. The state trial court denied the request. The California Court of Appeal reversed and sent the matter back for an order to show cause and an evidentiary hearing. After the case returned to the trial court, that court again denied resentencing. The California Court of Appeal affirmed, and the California Supreme Court denied review.

Claims

The court said Towner’s arguments were somewhat confusing but identified six claims concerning the resentencing hearing: the trial court improperly considered former grand-jury testimony and Towner did not waive the issue; the trial court relied partly on a harmless-error analysis concerning the admission of evidence; the trial court violated due process by deciding an issue that had not been briefed; the trial court improperly admitted juvenile-court testimony; the evidence was insufficient to deny resentencing; and Towner’s lawyer was ineffective at the resentencing hearing.

Ruling and next steps

The court concluded that, when liberally construed, the claims were sufficient to require a response. This was an order to show cause, meaning the respondent was ordered to explain why the requested writ should not be granted. The court did not resolve the merits of the claims.

The court granted Towner’s motion to proceed without paying the filing fee. It directed the Clerk to serve the order on the respondent, the respondent’s attorney, and the California Attorney General, and to mail a copy to Towner. The respondent must file and serve an answer complying with the rules governing § 2254 cases within 60 days after the order’s issuance. Instead of an answer, the respondent may file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds. The order also set deadlines for any opposition, reply, and response to an answer, and required Towner to keep the court and respondent informed of address changes. The court stated that failure to comply with its orders could result in dismissal of the action without prejudice.