Mitchell v. Sherman

Background

Justin Mitchell seeks federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 from convictions entered after a jury trial in the California Superior Court for San Mateo County. The opinion states that he was convicted of burglary and other charges. A California appellate court affirmed the convictions in March 2018, and the California Supreme Court summarily denied review in May 2018.

Mitchell filed this federal case on August 14, 2019. At his request, the court stayed the proceedings under Rhines v. Weber so he could exhaust certain theories in state court. The California Supreme Court denied his state habeas petition without comment on December 18, 2019. The opinion states that Mitchell had now exhausted the theories for which the stay was entered.

Claims

Mitchell asserts two related grounds for federal habeas relief. First, he argues that an improper jury instruction about permissible inferences from a person’s failure to explain or deny testimony violated his rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Second, he argues that his trial attorney was ineffective under Strickland v. Washington because the attorney failed to object to that instruction and failed to seek an instruction requiring cautious treatment of accomplice testimony. The court held that, when read liberally, these claims could be considered in a federal habeas action.

Ruling and next steps

The court granted Mitchell’s motion to lift the stay. It ordered Stuart Sherman to show cause—meaning to explain why the requested relief should not be granted—and to respond to the petition by May 11, 2020. The response could be an answer complying with Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases or, instead, a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds. If Sherman filed an answer, the relevant portions of the previously transcribed state trial record were also due with that answer. If Sherman filed a procedural motion to dismiss, Mitchell’s opposition or statement of non-opposition was due June 8, 2020, and Sherman’s reply was due June 22, 2020. Judge Joseph C. Spero did not decide whether Mitchell was entitled to habeas relief in this order.