Petitta v. Covella

Background

Lawrence J. Petitta, a state prisoner incarcerated at Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility, filed a self-represented petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging a sentence from the Santa Clara County Superior Court. According to the amended petition, he pleaded guilty to second-degree robbery around July 25, 2013, and received a 13-year state-prison sentence to be served at 85 percent.

The court had dismissed Petitta’s original petition with permission to amend. It had rejected one claim because it alleged only a violation of state law, rejected another because California Penal Code § 667.5(c)(9) was not unconstitutionally vague, and allowed Petitta to amend his claim concerning post-sentence conduct credit to explain how the state court’s decision violated federal law or the Constitution.

Petitta’s amended claim

In the amended petition, Petitta again argued that he was entitled to 80% post-sentence conduct credit. He asserted that the state court violated due process by applying California Penal Code § 2933.1 and by failing to compare second-degree robbery with other listed violent crimes. He cited California decisions and referred to an alleged Fourteenth Amendment “equal sentencing clause.”

The court concluded that these arguments challenged the interpretation and application of California sentencing law. The cases Petitta cited addressed California law and did not support a federal constitutional claim. The court also stated that the Fourteenth Amendment does not contain an “equal sentencing clause.” Federal habeas relief is unavailable for state-law violations or alleged errors in applying state sentencing law, absent fundamental unfairness.

Eighth Amendment argument

The court understood the amended petition also to raise an Eighth Amendment proportionality claim: that granting 80% rather than 85% post-sentence conduct credit made Petitta’s sentence disproportionate to his crime. The court said this claim did not appear to have been exhausted in the state courts, but it also rejected the claim on the merits.

The court explained that the Eighth Amendment’s proportionality principle is narrow. It does not require exact proportionality between a crime and its sentence; it bars only sentences that are grossly disproportionate to the offense. The court held that the state court’s decision to award 80% rather than 85% conduct credit did not create an inference of gross disproportionality.

Disposition

The court DISMISSED the amended petition with prejudice for failure to state a cognizable claim for federal habeas relief. It also DENIED a certificate of appealability, finding that Petitta had not made the required showing that reasonable judges could debate the court’s treatment of his constitutional claims. The clerk was directed to enter judgment in favor of P. Covella and close the file.

Classification note

This order is classified as mixed because the court treated the sentencing-credit arguments as non-cognizable state-law claims while also addressing and rejecting the separate Eighth Amendment proportionality theory on the merits.