Coneal v. Smith
- William Orrick
- 3:21-cv-03421
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Coneal v. Smith, Judge Kim ordered a response to Jerry Coneal’s habeas petition challenging his murder conviction and sentence.
Jerry Coneal and Laurie Smith; the case proceeds to the respondent’s answer or a possible procedural motion to dismiss.
What happened
In Coneal v. Smith, Jerry Coneal, a state prisoner representing himself, asked for federal review of his San Mateo County murder conviction and sentence. He challenged several trial rulings, the evidence, his lawyer’s performance, and his sentence.
The court found that Coneal’s claims were potentially appropriate for federal review and required Laurie Smith to respond. The court did not decide whether Coneal should receive relief.
Judge Sallie Kim ordered Smith to file either an answer explaining why the petition should be denied or, on procedural grounds, a motion to dismiss. Coneal may respond after either filing.
The detailed version
- Coneal v. Smith · No. 3:21-cv-03421
- William Orrick
- June 1, 2021
Background
Jerry Coneal, a state prisoner incarcerated at the Santa Clara County Jail, filed a petition under Section 2254 asking for federal habeas relief from a conviction and sentence imposed by the San Mateo County Superior Court. He was convicted by a jury of first-degree murder. The jury also found several gang-related and firearm allegations true. The superior court sentenced him to life without the possibility of parole, plus consecutive terms of 25 years to life and another 25 years to life that was stayed under state law.
Coneal had unsuccessfully appealed to the California Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of California, which denied review on February 11, 2020. He filed this federal petition without a lawyer.
Claims and initial review
Coneal raised nine claims: improper admission of gang evidence; prosecutorial misconduct during closing and rebuttal arguments; ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to object to that alleged misconduct; denial of a request for a curative instruction or an opportunity for sur-rebuttal; refusal to instruct the jury on voluntary manslaughter as a lesser-included charge; the cumulative effect of trial errors; the alleged unconstitutionality of his mandatory sentence of life without parole; refusal to allow a different judge to resentence him on remand; and insufficient evidence to support the guilty verdict.
The court stated that, when liberally construed, the claims appeared potentially cognizable under Section 2254 and warranted a response from the respondent. The court did not decide the merits of any claim or grant habeas relief.
Order
The court ordered service of the order and related case-assignment materials on Laurie Smith and directed Smith to file and serve, within 60 days, an answer explaining why the writ should not be granted. Smith must also provide relevant previously transcribed portions of the state trial record. If Coneal responds to the answer, he must file and serve a response within 30 days after receiving it.
The court also allowed Smith to file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds instead of an answer. The order set deadlines for Coneal’s opposition or statement of non-opposition and for Smith’s reply. Judge Sallie Kim entered the order on June 1, 2021.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.