Demacedo v. Koenig
- Laurel Beeler
- 3:19-cv-05815
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Demacedo v. Koenig, Judge Beeler ordered the respondent to answer a petition challenging Demacedo’s state-court convictions.
Denis Demacedo and Craig Koenig; the respondent was required to answer Demacedo’s petition.
What happened
Demacedo v. Koenig concerns Denis Demacedo’s petition challenging his California convictions after an automobile accident that killed three people and injured another. A jury convicted him of several offenses, and he received prison terms totaling 47 years and two months to life.
Demacedo alleged that the state-court proceedings violated the Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. His appeals in the California courts were unsuccessful before he filed this federal petition.
Judge Laurel Beeler ruled that the claims were not plainly without merit and ordered the respondent to answer by September 28, 2020. The order required the respondent to explain why the requested relief should not be granted; it did not decide whether Demacedo should ultimately win.
The detailed version
- Demacedo v. Koenig · No. 3:19-cv-05815
- Laurel Beeler
- July 28, 2020
Background
Denis Demacedo, an inmate at the Correctional Training Facility in Soledad, filed a petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Habeas corpus is a procedure for challenging a person’s custody as violating federal law. Demacedo consented to proceed before a magistrate judge.
According to the petition, after an automobile accident that caused three deaths and injured a fourth person, a jury in San Mateo County Superior Court convicted Demacedo on November 24, 2015, of second-degree murder, gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated, driving under the influence of alcohol and causing injury, driving with a blood-alcohol content of .08 or higher and causing injury, perjury, and hit and run. The court sentenced him to prison terms totaling 47 years and two months to life, with different sentences for the individual convictions.
The California Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction, and the California Supreme Court denied Demacedo’s petition for review. He then filed this federal habeas petition.
Court’s analysis
The court reviewed the petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2243 and Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Those provisions allow a court to order a response unless the petition shows that the detained person is not entitled to relief. Demacedo alleged violations of the Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. After reviewing the petition, the court concluded that it could not say the claims were plainly without merit.
Ruling and next steps
The court ordered the petition to receive a response. The clerk was directed to serve the order and petition on the respondent and the respondent’s attorney, the Attorney General of California. The respondent was ordered to file and serve an answer by September 28, 2020, explaining why a writ of habeas corpus should not issue and including relevant portions of the previously transcribed state-court proceedings. If Demacedo wished to respond, he was required to file and serve a traverse by October 28, 2020. The order did not resolve the merits of his constitutional claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.