Wynn v. Foulk
- Susan Illston
- 3:20-cv-00181
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Wynn v. Foulk, Judge Illston allowed one federal habeas claim to proceed, dismissed the state-law claim, and ordered respondents to answer.
Samuel Wynn and the respondents in his state-custody case. Wynn’s federal ineffective-assistance claim continued to the response stage, while his state-law sentencing claim was dismissed.
What happened
In Wynn v. Foulk, Samuel Wynn challenged his California convictions in a federal petition for a writ of habeas corpus. He alleged that his trial lawyer failed to object to expert testimony he described as improper criminal and racial profiling evidence.
The court found that this ineffective-assistance claim could proceed and ordered a response. It dismissed Wynn’s separate claim that California law barred multiple punishment for kidnapping and human trafficking because federal habeas relief is not available for errors of state law.
Judge Susan Illston ordered the respondents to answer the remaining claim by October 2, 2020. Wynn could file a reply by November 13, 2020, and he also had to file a copy of his petition bearing his own signature.
The detailed version
- Wynn v. Foulk · No. 3:20-cv-00181
- Susan Illston
- July 2, 2020
Background
Samuel Wynn, who was incarcerated at High Desert State Prison and represented by counsel, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his state-court criminal judgment. He had been acquitted of kidnapping to commit a sex crime but convicted of the lesser offense of kidnapping and convicted of human trafficking for commercial sex. The California Court of Appeal affirmed his judgment, and the California Supreme Court denied review.
The district court reviewed the petition under the federal habeas statute and the rule governing initial review of § 2254 petitions.
Claims and Rulings
Wynn raised two claims. First, he alleged that his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to effective assistance of counsel were violated because his trial lawyer did not object to expert testimony that Wynn characterized as improper criminal and racial profiling evidence concerning the typical pimp in Oakland. The court concluded that, liberally understood, this was a federal constitutional claim that could be considered in a federal habeas case and warranted a response. The court did not decide whether Wynn would ultimately receive habeas relief on this claim.
Second, Wynn argued that California Penal Code § 654 barred multiple punishment for his kidnapping and human-trafficking convictions. The court dismissed this claim because federal habeas relief is unavailable for violations of state law or alleged mistakes in interpreting or applying state law. The court also explained that merely asserting that a state-law error violated due process does not turn the state-law issue into a federal claim.
Order
The petition stated one cognizable claim for habeas relief and warranted a response; the state-law claim was dismissed. The respondent was ordered to file and serve an answer by October 2, 2020, along with relevant previously transcribed state-court proceedings. Wynn could file and serve a reply by November 13, 2020. Because the original petition was not signed by Wynn, the court also ordered him to file a signed copy by September 2, 2020.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.