Mount v. Sullivan
- Beth Freeman
- 5:20-cv-00153
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Mount v. Sullivan, Judge Beeler ordered a response to Billy Mount’s petition challenging his state custody without deciding its claims.
Billy Mount’s federal petition will proceed to a response; W. J. Sullivan, through the California Attorney General as counsel identified in the order, was required to answer.
What happened
Billy Mount, who was representing himself, filed a federal petition challenging his custody after a California jury convicted him of several firearm-related offenses and second-degree murder. The California Court of Appeal upheld his conviction, and the California Supreme Court declined to review it.
Mount raised three claims: that his appeals lawyer failed to argue he was innocent, that unfair gang evidence helped secure his murder conviction, and that his trial lawyer failed to present two alibi witnesses. The court said these claims could be considered in a federal custody challenge and required a response, but it did not decide whether Mount should win.
Judge Laurel Beeler ordered W. J. Sullivan to answer by April 24, 2020, and allowed Mount until May 22, 2020, to reply. The order also directed the clerk to serve the parties and required Mount to keep the court informed of any address change.
The detailed version
- Mount v. Sullivan · No. 5:20-cv-00153
- Beth Freeman
- Feb. 19, 2020
Background
Billy Mount, an inmate at the California Correctional Institution in Tehachapi, filed a petition for a federal writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. A habeas petition asks a federal court to determine whether a person held under a state-court judgment is in custody in violation of federal law. Mount filed the case without a lawyer and consented to proceed before a magistrate judge.
According to the petition, a jury in Lake County Superior Court found Mount guilty of second-degree murder, assault with a semiautomatic firearm, being a felon in possession of a firearm, and unlawful possession of a firearm. The jury also found a gang-enhancement allegation true. Mount was resentenced on June 24, 2019, to life in prison. The California Court of Appeal affirmed his conviction, and the California Supreme Court denied his petition for review.
Claims and Analysis
The petition asserted three claims: ineffective assistance by appellate counsel for failing to argue that Mount was actually innocent; improper use of gang evidence to persuade the jury to convict him of murder without supporting evidence, which the court treated as a possible due-process claim; and ineffective assistance by trial counsel for failing to present Mount’s two alibi witnesses.
The court reviewed the petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2243 and Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. It concluded that, liberally construed, the claims were legally cognizable in a federal habeas action and warranted a response. The court did not decide the truth of the allegations, whether counsel was ineffective, whether the gang evidence violated due process, or whether Mount was entitled to relief.
Order
The court ordered that the petition receive a response. It directed the clerk to mail the order and petition to the respondent, the respondent’s attorney, and Mount. The respondent was ordered to file and serve an answer by April 24, 2020, with relevant portions of the previously transcribed state-court proceedings. If Mount wished to respond, he was required to file and serve a reply by May 22, 2020. The order also stated that Mount was responsible for prosecuting the case, keeping the court informed of any address change, and complying with court orders.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.