Peasley v. People of the State of California
- Jacquelyn Corley
- 3:23-cv-04218
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Peasley v. People of California, Judge Corley ordered a response to two conviction challenges, denied mandate, and allowed Peasley to proceed without paying filing fees.
David S. Peasley and the state respondent; the case continued for a response to Peasley’s federal claims, but the court denied his request to compel the state superior court to hear his petition.
What happened
In Peasley v. People of the State of California, David S. Peasley, a California prisoner without a lawyer, challenged his conviction and sentence in a federal petition. He had pleaded guilty to six counts in 2009, and state courts had rejected his later challenges.
The court identified two claims that could be reviewed: that Peasley’s guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary, and that his plea agreement was breached. The court denied his request to order the Santa Cruz County Superior Court to hear his state petition because a federal court cannot issue that type of order to a state court.
Judge Jacquelyn Corley ordered the state to respond to the federal petition, allowed Peasley to proceed without paying filing fees, and denied his motion for a writ of mandate. The order did not decide whether Peasley’s conviction or sentence violated federal law.
The detailed version
- Peasley v. People of the State of California · No. 3:23-cv-04218
- Jacquelyn Corley
- Sept. 28, 2023
Background
David S. Peasley, a California prisoner proceeding without an attorney, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his state conviction and sentence. In 2009, he pleaded guilty to six counts of rape and concealment in the Santa Cruz County Superior Court. That court sentenced him to terms of 20 and 21 years in state prison. The California Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment on direct appeal in 2012. Peasley later filed unsuccessful state-court petitions in 2022 and 2023 before filing this federal petition.
Claims and requested relief
Peasley’s filing raised allegations that the court construed as two claims capable of judicial review and determination. First, he alleged that his guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary because the consequences were not discussed. Second, he alleged that his plea agreement was breached, violating due process and the Double Jeopardy Clause. The order did not decide the merits of either claim.
Peasley also requested a writ of mandate directing the Santa Cruz County Superior Court to hear his state petition. A writ of mandate is an order compelling a court or official to take or refrain from taking an action. The court held that a federal court cannot issue such a writ to a state court and denied both Peasley’s request and his separate motion for a writ of mandate.
Order
The court construed the filing as a federal petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and issued an order to show cause, meaning the respondent must explain why the requested relief should not be granted. The respondent was ordered to file an answer by January 3, 2024, although it could instead file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds. Peasley was allowed to proceed without paying filing fees, and his motion for a writ of mandate was denied. The case therefore continued, with no ruling yet on whether federal habeas relief should be granted.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.