Johnson v. Matterson

Background

Joe Randel Johnson, a state prisoner at California State Prison, Solano, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 asking the federal court to review his state-court custody. He represented himself. Johnson challenged a 2004 conviction and a 2020 resentencing from the Monterey County Superior Court.

The state court originally sentenced Johnson in 2004 to 58 years to life after convictions for attempted first-degree robbery in concert, first-degree burglary, aggravated assault, transportation of a controlled substance, and misdemeanor assault. The state appellate court later ordered resentencing to strike one one-year prison prior while otherwise affirming the judgment. After state-court proceedings concerning Proposition 36, the superior court resentenced Johnson in 2020 to 50 years to life. The California Court of Appeal affirmed, and the California Supreme Court denied review.

Claims

Johnson presented two claims. First, he alleged that his 2020 resentencing violated due process because the resentencing court failed to consider his post-conviction prison conduct and failed to exercise independent judgment. Second, he alleged that newly discovered evidence—a declaration from his victim stating that police pressure caused the victim to lie about implicating Johnson—undermined confidence in the 2004 conviction and violated due process.

Court’s action

The court concluded that, when the claims were read liberally, they appeared potentially supportable under the federal statute governing challenges to state-court custody. The court therefore ordered the respondent to show why the requested relief should not be granted. This was an order requiring a response, not a decision granting or denying the petition on the merits.

The respondent must file an answer complying with the rules for federal challenges to state convictions within 60 days and provide relevant portions of the previously transcribed state trial record. The respondent may instead file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds. If an answer is filed, Johnson may submit a reply within 30 days after receiving it. If a motion to dismiss is filed, Johnson may oppose it or state that he does not oppose it within 28 days, and the respondent may reply within 14 days after that filing.

Disposition

The court ordered service of the order and petition, directed the respondent to answer or file a procedural motion to dismiss, and set deadlines for further filings. It did not determine whether Johnson’s conviction or resentencing violated federal law and did not grant or deny habeas relief.