Smith v. Cueva

Background

Donte Marquee Smith, identified as a state prisoner incarcerated at the California Medical Facility, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his California state-court convictions. A federal petition under Section 2254 asks a federal court to determine whether a state prisoner is being held in violation of federal constitutional or statutory law.

According to the petition, a jury convicted Smith of murder, attempted murder, and shooting at an occupied motor vehicle in the Contra Costa County Superior Court. He was later found guilty of possessing a firearm after a prior juvenile delinquency adjudication. The opinion states that he was sentenced on January 30, 2015, to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole plus 25 years to life in state prison. The opinion also states that Smith unsuccessfully appealed and that the California Supreme Court denied review on December 14, 2022.

Claims

Smith raised two claims. First, he alleged that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call a cellular-phone-tower expert, failing to call a ballistics expert, failing to unseal S.S.’s telephone records, and failing to present alibi evidence. He asserted that this conduct violated due-process rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments.

Second, Smith alleged that his due-process rights were violated because he was legally, factually, and actually innocent.

Court’s analysis and order

The court stated that it could consider a state prisoner’s federal petition only when the petition alleged custody that violated the Constitution, federal law, or a treaty. It also explained that summary dismissal—ending the case at the initial review stage—is appropriate only when the allegations are vague or conclusory, plainly unbelievable, or clearly frivolous or false.

After construing Smith’s claims liberally, the court found that they appeared colorable, meaning they were sufficient to require a response. The court therefore ordered service of the petition and required the respondent to file an answer by February 5, 2024, addressing why the requested relief should not be granted. The respondent was also required to provide relevant portions of the previously transcribed state trial record.

The respondent could file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds instead of an answer by the same deadline. If an answer were filed, Smith could respond within 30 days after receiving it. The respondent also had to file either consent to or declination of magistrate-judge jurisdiction within 14 days. Smith had already consented to that jurisdiction.

Disposition

This was an order of service, not a final decision on the petition. The court did not determine whether Smith’s convictions violated federal law, whether counsel was ineffective, whether Smith was innocent, or whether he was entitled to relief. The classification is procedural_order because the court directed further proceedings without reaching the merits.