Lopez v. Johnson
- Jon Tigar
- 4:21-cv-07599
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Lopez v. Johnson, Judge Tigar ordered an answer on five habeas claims and found other claims noncognizable.
Joevon Lopez and R. C. Johnson; the case proceeds with a required response to the five claims the court found cognizable.
What happened
Joevon Lopez, who is incarcerated, filed a self-represented petition challenging his state-court conviction and sentence. He alleged that he was sentenced to 45 years to life after an Alameda County jury convicted him of first-degree murder and being an ex-felon in possession of a weapon.
The court found five claims sufficient to require a response: instructional error, insufficient evidence, double jeopardy, an evidentiary error involving cellphone-extraction evidence, and ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to object to that evidence. The court found that claims based on California sentencing laws were not proper federal habeas claims because they alleged only state-law errors. It also found that the preliminary hearing did not have to provide notice of the charge or the evidence the prosecution would use.
Judge Jon S. Tigar ordered R. C. Johnson to file an answer within 91 days explaining why relief should not be granted on the cognizable claims, while allowing a procedural motion to dismiss instead. The order did not decide whether Lopez should ultimately receive habeas relief.
The detailed version
- Lopez v. Johnson · No. 4:21-cv-07599
- Jon Tigar
- May 16, 2022
Background
Joevon Lopez, an incarcerated person proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his state-court conviction. According to the petition, an Alameda County jury convicted Lopez of first-degree murder and being an ex-felon in possession of a weapon. He stated that he was sentenced on or about January 12, 2018, to 45 years to life in state prison. He also stated that he unsuccessfully appealed to the state appellate court and the California Supreme Court and had not filed a state habeas petition.
Claims the Court Found Cognizable
The court reviewed the petition under the initial screening procedure for federal habeas petitions. It found that the following claims were sufficiently stated to require a response from the respondent:
- the trial court failed to instruct the jury on aiding and abetting; - the evidence was insufficient; - the conviction violated the prohibition against double jeopardy; - the court improperly admitted evidence obtained through a cellphone extraction without an adequate foundation; and - counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to object to the cellphone-extraction evidence.
The court said these claims appeared capable of supporting federal habeas relief and ordered an answer addressing them.
Claims the Court Found Not Cognizable
The court found that Lopez's claims concerning California Penal Code § 1170.95 and amendments to California Penal Code § 189 did not state federal habeas claims because they alleged errors in applying state law. Federal habeas relief is available for violations of federal law, not merely for errors of state law.
The court also found that Lopez's claim concerning inadequate notice at the preliminary hearing did not state a federal habeas claim. The court explained that the charging document provides constitutional notice of the nature and cause of the accusation. It further stated that the preliminary hearing examination did not have to provide that notice or identify the evidence the prosecution intended to use at trial.
Order and Effect
Judge Jon S. Tigar ordered the clerk to serve the order on R. C. Johnson, the Attorney General of California, and Lopez. Johnson must, within 91 days, file an answer showing why a writ of habeas corpus should not be granted on the claims the court found cognizable, together with relevant portions of the transcribed state trial record. Lopez may file a reply within 35 days after the answer is filed.
The order also allowed Johnson to file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds instead of an answer within the same 91-day period. The court reminded Lopez of his filing and service obligations and stated that failure to comply with court orders could result in dismissal for failure to prosecute. The order did not resolve the merits of the five claims or grant habeas relief.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.