Bush v. Davis

Background

Nolan Jay Bush pleaded guilty in Sonoma County Superior Court to robbery of an inhabited dwelling, fleeing a peace officer’s vehicle while driving recklessly, and possession of a firearm by a felon. He also admitted a five-year sentencing enhancement based on a prior serious felony conviction. The state court imposed a sentence of 10 years and four months. Bush did not appeal, and his conviction became final on August 29, 2017.

California Senate Bill 1393 later amended state sentencing law to allow courts to exercise discretion to strike or dismiss certain prior serious-felony enhancements in cases that were not yet final when the law took effect on January 1, 2019. In August 2018, Bush asked the state superior court to strike his enhancement under that law. The superior court denied the request. Bush’s appeal from that decision was dismissed because the order was not appealable, and the California Supreme Court later denied his state habeas petition. Bush then filed this federal petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

Issue

Bush argued that the state courts violated due process by refusing to resentence him under Senate Bill 1393. He also argued that the law was unconstitutional because it did not apply retroactively to him.

Court’s reasoning

The court held that Bush was not eligible for resentencing because his convictions became final in 2017, before the statute’s January 1, 2019 effective date. The state court’s refusal to resentence him therefore did not violate a federal due-process right.

The court also explained that a federal court reviewing a state conviction generally cannot grant habeas relief based only on an alleged violation or misinterpretation of state law, including state sentencing law. The state courts’ interpretation of Senate Bill 1393 therefore bound the federal court, even if Bush believed that interpretation was wrong. The court found that the authorities Bush cited did not change that result, including because the federal Supreme Court decision he relied on involved people sentenced after a different law’s effective date, unlike Bush.

Ruling and disposition

The court concluded that Bush’s petition failed to state a claim for federal habeas relief. It granted Ronald Davis’s motion to dismiss and dismissed the petition. The court did not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice. It also ruled that a certificate of appealability would not issue, although Bush may seek one from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The clerk was directed to enter judgment for Davis, terminate pending motions, and close the file.