Paige v. Allison

Background

Leondre Paige, identified as a state prisoner, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 seeking habeas relief from his state-court custody. He had been convicted in state court of first-degree murder and received a sentence of 50 years to life. The sentence was enhanced based on a finding that he personally used and discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury. After an unsuccessful direct appeal, Paige pursued state habeas proceedings that ended with an adverse California Supreme Court ruling on September 9, 2020.

Claims

The petition asserted prosecutorial-misconduct and ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims. Paige alleged that the prosecutor improperly injected personal opinions and beliefs into the evidentiary presentation and vouched for prosecution witnesses. He also alleged misconduct during closing argument, including asking jurors to consider the consequences and punishments resulting from a potential verdict and misstating legal standards concerning implied malice, voluntary manslaughter based on sudden quarrel, and imperfect self-defense.

Paige further alleged that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the prosecutor’s conduct. He asserted that there was a plausible defense-of-others justification because the victim had charged into a fight between two other people while punching and knocking one of them out. Paige also alleged that counsel failed to investigate and present evidence of his heavy intoxication, such as by retaining a toxicologist.

Court’s action

The court concluded that, construing the petition liberally, it stated cognizable claims for relief. It issued an order to show cause directing the respondent to explain why the petition should not be granted and why the writ should not issue. The clerk was ordered to serve the order, petition, and attachments on the respondent and counsel, including the Attorney General of California, and on Paige and his counsel.

The respondent was directed to file an answer complying with Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases within 60 days and to provide relevant previously transcribed portions of the state record. Paige could file a response within 30 days after receiving the answer. The respondent could instead file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds; the order set response and reply deadlines for that procedure. The court did not decide the merits of Paige’s claims or grant habeas relief. The order was signed by United States Magistrate Judge Robert M. Illman.