Russell v. Davis

Background

Robert G. Russell, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a federal petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He challenged the state courts’ denials of his 2013 and 2018 requests for resentencing under California’s Proposition 36, also called the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012.

Russell had been convicted by a jury in Santa Cruz County Superior Court of offenses arising from a drunk-driving traffic accident in which he struck a pedestrian. After finding that Russell had six prior strike convictions and six prior serious felony convictions, the state court sentenced him on December 2, 2011, to 50 years to life in state prison. The California Court of Appeal later modified the judgment by striking two prior-prison-term enhancements but otherwise affirmed it.

Proposition 36 allows certain prisoners serving life sentences under California’s Three Strikes Law to seek resentencing as second-strike offenders. The law excludes people with prior convictions for specified offenses. Russell argued that the state courts had denied his resentencing requests arbitrarily and without explanation, violating due process.

Court’s analysis

The court noted that the record did not contain the alleged Proposition 36 resentencing petitions Russell filed in state court. The record also did not clearly show whether he raised the resentencing request in all of his later state petitions. The court nevertheless addressed the claim and found it meritless.

The court explained that alleged errors in applying state sentencing law generally cannot support federal habeas relief. It further concluded that the state courts’ denials were not arbitrary or capricious because Proposition 36’s plain language made Russell ineligible for resentencing. The court identified his prior attempted-murder conviction and his prior conviction for molesting a six-year-old child as disqualifying convictions under the statute.

Under the federal habeas standard, a federal court may grant relief on a claim decided by a state court only if the state decision was contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established United States Supreme Court law, or was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts. The court held that Russell had not met that standard.

Disposition

Judge Charles R. Breyer denied the First Amended Petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The court also denied a certificate of appealability under Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases and 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), concluding that reasonable judges would not find its assessment of Russell’s constitutional claims debatable or wrong.