Cox v. Burton

Background

Antjuan Darnell Cox, a prisoner housed at the California Health Care Facility in Stockton, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 seeking federal review of his state-court convictions. He represented himself. Cox had pleaded no contest and was convicted in Alameda County Superior Court of second-degree robbery with firearm use and attempted murder. He was sentenced on March 18, 2010, to “25 years/35 years concurrent.” He did not appeal, but he filed unsuccessful state-court habeas petitions before bringing this action.

Claim

Cox presented one claim. He alleged that his Fourteenth Amendment due-process rights were violated because the judges who presided over his criminal case allegedly failed to properly file their oaths of office with the California Secretary of State. Cox argued that this failure meant the judges had not properly established their authority and that the superior court therefore lacked jurisdiction over his case. He did not claim that the judges never took their oaths; his claim concerned the alleged failure to file them properly under California law.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that federal habeas relief is available only for violations of the United States Constitution, federal laws, or treaties. An alleged violation of state law cannot support federal habeas relief, even if a state court interpreted or applied state law incorrectly. The court rejected Cox’s attempt to convert the alleged state-law oath-filing violation into a federal due-process claim merely by labeling it a constitutional violation.

The court also stated that whether a state court has jurisdiction under state law is generally a state-law question. Cox cited no case, and the court found none, holding that a state judge’s failure to file an oath with a state record-keeping body deprives the judge or court of jurisdiction over a criminal case or violates the defendant’s federal due-process rights. The court found that the cases Cox cited did not establish that proposition. One case had dismissed a similar petition as moot without reaching the merits, and the other concerned a local official’s failure to file a bond rather than a judge’s authority or a criminal defendant’s constitutional rights.

Disposition

The court held that the alleged failure to file the judges’ oaths might have violated state law but did not violate Cox’s Fourteenth Amendment due-process rights. Because the petition asserted only a state-law claim, the court dismissed the petition for failure to state a claim and directed the clerk to close the file. The court expressly did not reach whether the petition, filed more than a decade after Cox’s conviction, was timely.