Luckett v. People of State of California

Background

Charles Edward Luckett, an inmate at Valley State Prison, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his California state-court conviction. The court identified Warden Landon Bird as the proper respondent because he was Luckett’s current custodian. Luckett was convicted by a jury of murder committed while engaged in attempted robbery, with personal use of a firearm, and received life-related prison sentences and a five-year firearm sentence.

Luckett previously filed a federal habeas petition challenging his conviction. The court denied that petition in 2020, and his appeal remained pending in the Ninth Circuit. While that appeal was pending, Luckett sought state-court resentencing under California Penal Code § 1170.95, now renumbered § 1172.6. The state trial court denied that request on the merits, and the state appellate court affirmed. The state appellate court also struck a probation investigation fee but did not address other fines, fees, and assessments.

In this case, Luckett raised two claims: first, that the state court’s denial of resentencing violated due process because there was insufficient evidence that a nonshooter had the required mental state; and second, that the state court violated equal protection, due process, and the prohibition on excessive fines by imposing fees, assessments, and restitution fines without first holding an ability-to-pay hearing.

Rulings on the Habeas Claims

The court determined that the resentencing claim was legally sufficient, when read liberally, to qualify as a possible federal habeas claim and required an answer from the respondent. The court explained that denial of state-law resentencing relief could potentially support a federal due-process claim if the statute entitled Luckett to relief but the state court denied it. The court did not decide whether Luckett was entitled to resentencing or whether the state court violated due process.

The court dismissed the financial-penalty claim with prejudice. It held that fees, assessments, and restitution fines do not affect Luckett’s ability to be released from custody, so that claim was not cognizable in a federal habeas proceeding. The court stated that challenging custody along with the financial penalties did not create jurisdiction to review the restitution claim.

Before requiring the respondent to answer the resentencing claim, the court ordered briefing on whether this case could proceed while Luckett’s earlier appeal remained pending. The respondent was ordered to address that issue within 63 days of the order, and Luckett was ordered to respond within 28 days after the respondent’s brief was filed.

Counsel and Fee-Waiver Requests

The court denied Luckett’s request for appointed counsel. It explained that the constitutional right to counsel does not apply to federal habeas proceedings, although a court may appoint counsel when the interests of justice require it and the petitioner cannot afford representation. The court concluded that appointment was not mandatory under the circumstances presented and also found no basis for appointing a special master. The denial was stated without prejudice to the court appointing counsel later if circumstances required it.

The court granted Luckett’s request to proceed without paying court fees. It also directed the clerk to substitute Warden Landon Bird for the previously named respondent. The order warned that failing to comply with court orders or keep the court informed of an address change could result in dismissal for failure to prosecute.

Disposition

The court denied the request for appointed counsel, granted the request to proceed without paying court fees, and dismissed with prejudice the claim concerning fees, assessments, and restitution fines. It ordered briefing on whether the remaining resentencing claim could proceed in light of the pending Ninth Circuit appeal. The order did not resolve the merits of that remaining claim.