Anthony v. Clark

Background

Stephon Anthony, an inmate at California State Prison–Corcoran, filed this pro se action, meaning he was representing himself, under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. That statute allows a person in state custody to seek federal review of alleged violations of the Constitution or federal law. Anthony paid the filing fee. He alleged that an Alameda County jury convicted him of murder with special circumstances and that he was sentenced to life without parole on or about January 12, 2013. His direct state-court appeals were unsuccessful, and he reported that he had not filed a state habeas petition. He also reported that he was seeking resentencing under Senate Bill 620.

Claims and preliminary review

The court reviewed the petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2243 and Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. When Anthony was asked to state his claims, he referred to an attached argument. The attachments included state appellate filings and decisions. The court presumed that he intended to raise the claims presented in his petition for review to the California Supreme Court.

The court identified these potentially cognizable claims: an allegedly unauthorized natural-and-probable-consequences theory of first-degree murder liability; failure to apply Senate Bill 1437’s changes to that theory; admission of a statement to Oakland police in violation of Miranda; admission of testimony allegedly violating the Confrontation Clause; instructional error concerning second-degree murder and involuntary manslaughter; ineffective assistance for not requesting involuntary-manslaughter instructions; prosecutorial misconduct; unconstitutional peremptory strikes of African-American jurors under Batson-Wheeler; improper admission of rap music and lyrics; and cumulative error.

Three of the asserted claims referred to arguments made by Anthony’s co-defendants. Because Anthony did not provide those co-defendants’ petitions, the court could not determine what additional arguments they contained. The court therefore limited the Batson-Wheeler and rap-lyrics claims to arguments described in Anthony’s own filings and declined to consider unspecified arguments joined from the co-defendants’ petitions. The court also directed that any amended petition must state the claims and supporting arguments directly rather than incorporating them by reference or joinder, while warning that an amended petition generally waives omitted claims from the earlier petition.

Ruling and next steps

The court did not decide the merits of any claim. It found that the claims identified in the order appeared cognizable under § 2254 and required a response. The clerk was ordered to serve the order on Ken Clark and his attorney, the California Attorney General. Clark was ordered to file an answer within 91 days showing why the requested relief should not be granted, along with relevant portions of the transcribed state trial record. Alternatively, Clark could file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds within the same period. If an answer was filed, Anthony could submit a traverse within 35 days; if a dismissal motion was filed, he could respond within 28 days. The order also reminded Anthony about service, address updates, and compliance with court deadlines.