Lee v. Gastelo
- William Orrick
- 3:20-cv-05387
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Lee v. Gastelo, Judge Orrick allowed two habeas claims to proceed, dismissed one, granted an extension, and denied Lee’s unnecessary fee-waiver motion.
John Henry Lee’s federal habeas case continues on his claim that the state lacked power to prosecute him and his ineffective-assistance claim; his factual-innocence sentencing claim was dismissed, and Josie Gastelo was ordered to respond.
What happened
In Lee v. Gastelo, John Henry Lee asked the federal court to review his state robbery conviction. The court noted that the petition appeared potentially late because Lee was convicted in 2015 but filed federally in 2020.
The court allowed Lee’s claims that the state lacked power to prosecute him and that his lawyer provided ineffective assistance to proceed. It dismissed his factual-innocence claim, treating it as a challenge to the evidence supporting his sentencing under California’s Three Strikes Law. The court also granted Lee’s request for more time to file his amended petition and denied as moot his request to proceed without prepaying filing fees because that request had already been granted.
Judge Orrick ordered the respondent to file an answer or a motion to dismiss by September 1, 2021. The court did not decide whether Lee was entitled to habeas relief or whether the case was untimely.
The detailed version
- Lee v. Gastelo · No. 3:20-cv-05387
- William Orrick
- May 28, 2021
Background
John Henry Lee sought federal habeas relief, meaning federal review of whether his state-court custody violated the Constitution or federal law. According to the petition, Lee pleaded no contest in 2015 in Alameda County Superior Court to second-degree robbery, and his sentence was enhanced under California Penal Code sections 667.5 and 1192.7. The opinion states that his state-court challenges were denied before he filed this federal action in 2020.
The court had previously dismissed Lee’s original claims, which concerned allegedly conflicting California robbery statutes and the rule of lenity, while allowing him to amend. Because Lee pleaded guilty or no contest, the court explained that the generally available habeas challenges concerned whether the plea was voluntary and intelligent and whether counsel gave adequate advice, subject to stated exceptions.
First Amended Petition
The first amended petition asserted three claims: (1) the state lacked power to bring Lee into court to answer the charges; (2) Lee was factually innocent; and (3) Lee received ineffective assistance of counsel. Applying the initial screening standard under 28 U.S.C. § 2243 and Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the court found claims one and three cognizable, meaning legally eligible for further consideration, and allowed them to proceed.
The court dismissed claim two. It characterized that claim as a sentencing claim alleging insufficient evidence that Lee’s crimes were violent and serious under California’s Three Strikes Law. The court stated that the allegations underlying claim two would still be addressed as part of claim one.
Motions and Case Status
The court granted Lee’s motion for an extension of time to file his amended petition. It denied as moot Lee’s motion to proceed without prepaying filing fees because an earlier motion to do so had already been granted.
The court did not decide the merits of the two surviving claims. It also did not decide whether the habeas action was untimely. The court observed that the action appeared potentially untimely and stated that the respondent could, but was not required to, file a motion to dismiss on that ground.
Order
Judge William H. Orrick ordered the respondent to file an answer or a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds by September 1, 2021. If an answer was filed, it had to address why habeas relief should not be granted on the cognizable claims and include relevant portions of the state trial record. The case therefore continued on claims one and three, while claim two was dismissed.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.