Vickers v. Matteson

Background

Michael Esley Vickers filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, asking a federal court to review his state custody and conviction. A Contra Costa County Superior Court jury found him guilty of second-degree murder and intentional discharge of a firearm. The jury also found true allegations concerning a prior strike and a prior serious felony conviction. The resulting sentence was 60 years to life in state custody.

The California Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction in June 2019 but sent the case back for the trial court to decide whether to remove the firearm and prior-serious-felony enhancements. In October 2020, the trial court declined to remove them and again imposed a sentence of 60 years to life. Vickers appealed that decision on November 6, 2020. The appeal remained pending when he filed his federal petition in December 2020.

Vickers’s federal petition alleged Fourteenth Amendment due-process violations based on the admission of his rap lyrics into evidence and the trial court’s refusal to remove the sentencing enhancements. Matteson, identified in the caption as the warden, moved to dismiss because the state appeal was still pending. Vickers requested a stay instead of dismissal.

Analysis

The court applied the Younger abstention doctrine, which generally requires federal courts to refrain from interfering with ongoing state criminal proceedings in appropriate circumstances. The court explained that state appellate review remains part of the state criminal proceeding and must be completed before a federal court considers the same issues.

The court found that the required conditions were met: the state appeal was ongoing; the case involved important state interests; California courts could provide an opportunity to raise constitutional claims; and federal consideration of the claims could interfere with the state proceeding. The court rejected Vickers’s argument that the relevant state proceedings ended when the Court of Appeal issued its 2019 remittitur because the later appeal concerning the sentencing enhancements was still pending. One of Vickers’s federal claims directly concerned the sentence at issue in that appeal.

The court also rejected a stay under Rhines v. Weber. It explained that such a stay is available for certain petitions involving claims already addressed by the state courts when the petitioner needs time to pursue additional state remedies. Here, Vickers had not yet received a final state decision and needed to complete the pending state proceedings. The court stated that he would have the full one-year federal filing period after the state proceedings became final.

Disposition

The court granted Matteson’s motion to dismiss. It denied Vickers’s request for a stay and dismissed the action without prejudice under the Younger abstention doctrine. The clerk was ordered to close the file. The court also found no reason to issue a certificate of appealability.