Wilkinson v. Ndoh
- Jon Tigar
- 4:20-cv-01329
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Wilkinson v. Ndoh, Judge Tigar ordered a response to Wilkinson’s petition without deciding whether his conviction or sentence was unlawful.
Todd P Wilkinson’s federal challenge to his state conviction was allowed to proceed to a response stage. R. Ndoh was ordered to answer or file a procedural motion, and the case remained unresolved.
What happened
In Wilkinson v. Ndoh, Todd P Wilkinson, a state prisoner representing himself, asked the federal court to review his San Mateo County conviction and sentence. He challenged the use of his prior convictions after a 2017 California Supreme Court decision.
Wilkinson argued that the trial court improperly decided facts about his prior convictions instead of having a jury decide them, violating the Sixth Amendment. He also argued that the evidence did not support the finding that he had those prior convictions.
The court found these claims sufficient to require a response but did not decide whether Wilkinson should receive relief. Judge Tigar ordered R. Ndoh to answer within 60 days or file a motion to dismiss based on procedural grounds.
The detailed version
- Wilkinson v. Ndoh · No. 4:20-cv-01329
- Jon Tigar
- Feb. 25, 2020
Background
Todd P Wilkinson, a state prisoner at Avenal State Prison, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 asking the federal court to review his state-court conviction. He filed the petition without a lawyer and paid the filing fee. In 2003, a jury convicted him of robbery of an inhabited dwelling with prior enhancements, and the state court sentenced him to 37 years to life. His direct appeal was denied in 2003, and the California Supreme Court denied review in 2004. He later raised the claims in state collateral proceedings; the California Supreme Court denied his state habeas petition on February 13, 2019. The order says it was unclear whether he had previously filed a federal habeas petition challenging the same conviction.
Claims
Wilkinson argued that a 2017 California Supreme Court decision, People v. Gallardo, made his sentence unconstitutional under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. Specifically, he claimed that the trial court violated his Sixth Amendment jury-trial right by finding facts about his prior convictions. He also claimed that insufficient evidence supported the trial court’s finding that he had suffered those prior convictions. The order noted that his separate miscarriage-of-justice argument did not directly challenge the validity of his conviction.
Ruling and procedure
The court liberally construed the petition and found that the stated claims appeared legally cognizable under Section 2254 and warranted an answer from the respondent. The court therefore ordered the Clerk to serve the order and petition on R. Ndoh and the California Attorney General’s Office. It ordered R. Ndoh to file an answer within 60 days explaining why the requested relief should not be granted, along with relevant portions of the previously transcribed state trial record. The respondent could instead file, within 60 days, a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds. The court gave Wilkinson 30 days to respond to an answer, or 28 days to oppose a motion to dismiss, with a reply period for the respondent. The order did not decide the merits of Wilkinson’s constitutional claims or grant or deny habeas relief. Judge Jon S. Tigar signed the order on February 25, 2020.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.