Pedro Medina Castillon v. The People of the State of California

Background

Pedro Medina Castillon, an inmate housed at Corcoran State Prison, filed this self-represented petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Following a jury trial in Santa Clara County Superior Court, he was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder with firearm use and received a sentence of 50 years to life plus life without the possibility of parole. The California Court of Appeal affirmed his conviction, the California Supreme Court denied review, and the U.S. Supreme Court denied his petition for review. He also filed an unsuccessful state habeas petition.

The court had previously found part of Castillon’s original petition cognizable, meaning legally eligible for federal habeas review, but dismissed four claims with leave to amend because they were based solely on state law. After an amended petition was dismissed for the same defect, Castillon filed a second amended petition.

Claims and Analysis

The court identified ten claims. Claims 1 through 3 challenged jury instructions concerning provocation, heat of passion, manslaughter, and a “cooling off” period. Claim 4 challenged the exclusion of a heat-of-passion defense. Claims 5 and 6 challenged the exclusion of evidence involving a restraining order and Facebook threats allegedly made by the victim. Claim 7 challenged the exclusion of the victim’s toxicology report under the Confrontation Clause. Claim 8 challenged the trial court’s refusal to have the jury hear part of the testimony again. Claim 9 challenged questioning of the victim’s eight-year-old son about whether the victim lived at the house. Claim 10 alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel concerning the CALCRIM No. 570 jury instruction.

The court held that Claims 4, 5, and 6 were cognizable to the extent they relied on the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. It dismissed Claims 5 and 6 without leave to amend to the extent they relied on a First Amendment right of access to the courts. The court explained that this right allows an inmate to bring a grievance to court but does not create a right to litigate effectively after the case is in court. It also dismissed Claim 8 without leave to amend to the extent it relied on that First Amendment theory.

The court allowed Claim 8 to proceed under the Sixth Amendment right to present a complete defense and the Fourteenth Amendment right to due process, although it expressed doubt that the claim would succeed. The court noted that it had not found authority resolving whether a limited readback of testimony violated those rights and therefore preferred to receive briefing rather than dismiss the claim at the screening stage.

Disposition

Judge Edward M. Chen ordered that Claims 1 through 3, 7, and 9 through 10 from the original petition, and Claims 4 through 6 and 8 from the second amended petition, warranted a response. The order limited those claims to specified federal theories: due process, the right to a jury trial, the right to present a complete defense, the Confrontation Clause, and effective assistance of counsel. Any other claims were either not raised or had been deemed non-cognizable in federal habeas proceedings.

The court directed Raymond Madden to file and serve an answer showing cause why habeas relief should not be granted by July 14, 2023. It allowed Castillon to file and serve a response to that answer by August 18, 2023. The order did not decide the ultimate merits of the claims that remained.