McCowan v. Silva

Background

William Tracy McCowan, a California state prisoner housed at Corcoran State Prison, filed a petition for federal review of his state-court conviction and sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He paid the filing fee. McCowan stated that, apart from his direct appeal, he had not previously filed a petition, application, or motion concerning the conviction in state or federal court.

The opinion states that McCowan was sentenced in Santa Clara County Superior Court to 430 years. On July 5, 2024, the state appellate court found that three sexual-abuse counts—counts 40, 42, and 44—were unsupported by substantial evidence. It vacated those convictions and sent the case back to the state superior court for resentencing under current law, while rejecting McCowan’s other challenges to his conviction and sentence. The California Supreme Court denied review on September 11, 2024.

Claims and Initial Review

McCowan raised 19 grounds for relief. They included claims of prosecutorial misconduct; ineffective assistance of trial counsel; violations of his rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments; denial of the right to confront witnesses; problems involving digital evidence; challenges to the use of consecutive sentences under California Penal Code section 667.6(d); and claims of innocence and miscarriage of justice.

At this stage, the court did not decide whether McCowan was entitled to habeas relief. Instead, applying the initial review required for a federal habeas petition, the court concluded that, when read generously because McCowan was representing himself, the petition stated claims that were legally capable of supporting federal relief. The court therefore ordered further proceedings.

Order

The court ordered the Clerk to serve the order on Respondent E. Silva and the Attorney General of California, and to mail a copy to McCowan. It ordered the respondent to file and serve an answer within 91 days, explaining why the writ should not be granted based on the claims found legally sufficient. The respondent may instead file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds within the same 91-day period.

If an answer is filed, McCowan may file a reply within 35 days after the answer. If a motion to dismiss is filed, McCowan may respond within 28 days, and the respondent may file a reply within 14 days after that response.

The court DENIED as moot McCowan’s pleading titled “Motion for Mercy.” The pleading sought clarification about the filing fee, but McCowan had already paid that fee. The order also reminded McCowan to serve his filings on the respondent, keep the court informed of any address change, and comply with court deadlines. It stated that failure to do so may result in dismissal for failure to prosecute. The order terminates Docket No. 11.