Sherry v. Superior Court of California

Background

Artierey Sherry, a state prisoner incarcerated at California State Prison–Sacramento, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 seeking federal habeas relief. A federal habeas petition asks a federal court to order relief from custody that allegedly violates the Constitution, federal laws, or treaties. Sherry had paid the filing fee.

In 2019, Sherry pleaded no contest to voluntary manslaughter. On October 8, 2019, the Santa Clara County Superior Court sentenced him to 14 years and 8 months in prison. He did not appeal his conviction.

Claims and analysis

Sherry argued that he was entitled to resentencing under California Penal Code § 1170(d)(1). The court noted that this provision concerns a defendant who was under 18 when committing an offense, was sentenced to life without parole, and had been incarcerated for at least 15 years. The court stated that the provision appeared inapplicable, based on the information in the petition.

The court also said the petition appeared untimely. The federal statute of limitations generally requires a state prisoner to file a habeas petition within one year of the latest of several specified dates, including when the state judgment becomes final. Because Sherry stated that he was convicted and sentenced in 2019, the court said he would ultimately bear the burden of showing that the deadline was extended by statutory or equitable tolling.

The court then considered the claims even assuming the petition was timely. It concluded that Sherry did not clearly explain how he was in custody in violation of the Constitution or federal law. A federal habeas court cannot grant relief for a violation of state law or for an alleged state court error in interpreting or applying state law. The court further ruled that a claim about the denial of counsel during a state post-conviction proceeding was not cognizable in federal habeas review, meaning that federal habeas law did not allow the court to decide that type of claim.

Disposition

The court held that Sherry’s claims failed as a matter of law and that allowing amendment would be futile. It dismissed the petition with prejudice. It also denied a certificate of appealability because Sherry had not shown that reasonable judges could debate whether the petition stated a valid constitutional claim or whether the court’s procedural ruling was correct.

The clerk was directed to terminate all pending motions and close the file. Jeff Lynch, identified as the current warden of the prison where Sherry was incarcerated, was substituted as respondent under Rule 25(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.