Deleon v. Phillips

Background

Alejandro A. Deleon filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging the sentence imposed by the San Mateo County Superior Court. The petition identified one claim concerning a firearm enhancement that resulted in a consecutive 25-years-to-life term. Deleon stated that he received 15 years to life for second-degree murder and an additional 25 years to life for using a firearm, and argued that the failure to remove the enhancement violated due process.

The opinion states that Deleon was convicted of second-degree murder, possession of a firearm as a felon, and personal use of a firearm causing death. His total indeterminate sentence was 42 years to life, including 15 years to life for the murder conviction and a consecutive 25 years to life for the firearm enhancement.

The second petition

Deleon told the court that he intended to file separate petitions: one challenging his murder conviction and another challenging the firearm enhancement. He then filed another habeas petition, which was opened as a separate case. That petition was identical to the petition in this case except that it identified the other part of the same judgment as the subject of the challenge.

Because the later petition was filed while this case was pending, the court applied the rule that a new petition by a self-represented petitioner must be treated as a request to amend the pending petition rather than as an unauthorized second or successive petition. The court therefore directed that the later petition be treated as a proposed amended petition in this case and administratively closed the separate case.

Ruling

The court held that the murder conviction, firearm-possession conviction, firearm enhancement, and related sentences arose from the same judgment. It explained that Deleon must present challenges to those convictions and sentences in the same habeas petition and should not file separate petitions for them. The court further found that the two petitions raised the same due-process challenge and that this action was sufficient to challenge both the murder conviction and the firearm enhancement.

Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. denied as moot the request for leave to file an amended petition because the proposed amended petition was identical to the operative petition. The order terminated the motion, Docket No. 12, and stated that the briefing schedule remained unchanged. The order did not decide the merits of Deleon's challenge to the sentence or firearm enhancement.