Bowen v. Samuels

Background

Joevon L. Bowen filed a federal habeas petition challenging the California courts’ denial of his request for resentencing under California Penal Code section 1170.95. According to the petition, Bowen was convicted of first-degree murder in 2011 and sentenced to 25 years to life in state prison. In 2019, he sought resentencing under section 1170.95, which permits certain people convicted of first-degree murder to seek resentencing after changes to California’s natural-and-probable-consequences doctrine and felony-murder rule.

The California Superior Court held a hearing and denied Bowen’s request after finding that he was a major participant in the underlying felony who acted with reckless indifference to human life. The California Court of Appeal affirmed, and the California Supreme Court denied review.

Motion and analysis

Danny Samuels moved to dismiss the federal petition for failure to state a cognizable claim. The motion was unopposed; Bowen did not file a response.

The court explained that federal habeas relief is available to a person held under a state-court judgment only when the custody violates the U.S. Constitution, federal law, or a treaty. An alleged error in interpreting or applying state law is not reviewable through federal habeas proceedings. The court held that whether Bowen qualified for resentencing under section 1170.95 was solely a state-law question and therefore was not a cognizable federal habeas claim.

The court also held that the California courts’ interpretation of California law controlled in the federal habeas proceeding. It rejected Bowen’s reliance on due process, stating that asserting a due-process violation does not convert a state-law issue into a federal one.

Disposition

The court granted Samuels’s motion to dismiss and dismissed the petition for failure to state a cognizable claim. The court directed the clerk to terminate Docket No. 12, enter judgment in favor of Samuels, and close the file. It also ruled that a certificate of appealability would not issue because Bowen had not shown that reasonable jurists would debate whether the petition stated a valid constitutional claim or whether the court was correct in its procedural ruling. The court stated that Bowen may seek a certificate of appealability from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.