Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07338/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07338-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALFONSO FARQUHARSON,

Petitioner,

 v.

DERRAL G. ADAMS, Warden, California

State Prison, Corcoran, California,

Respondent.

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

Real Party in Interest /

No. C 06-07338 WHA

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

INTRODUCTION

Petitioner Alfonso Farquharson is serving ten years in California state prison. In his

petition for a writ of habeas corpus and the accompanying memorandum, he has stated valid

claims under 28 U.S.C. 2254. Respondent is ORDERED TO ANSWER the petition. 

STATEMENT

Petitioner pled guilty in Superior Court under California Penal Code Section 273a(a) to

felony child abuse, plus an enhancement under California Penal Code Section 12022.7(d) for

personally inflicting great bodily injury on a child under five years old. The sentencing judge

imposed a sentence of 10 years, imposing an aggravated term on the Section 12022.7(d)

enhancement because the victim had suffered multiple serious injuries. The prosecutor argued

that the victim suffered “fifteen broken bones,” but nothing in the probation report or any other

Case 3:06-cv-07338-WHA Document 2 Filed 12/05/06 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

part of the record supported that representation. It is the aggravated term Mr. Farquharson

challenges.

ANALYSIS

1. STANDARD OF REVIEW.

A district court may entertain a habeas petition filed by someone in custody pursuant to

a state-court judgment but only on grounds that he or she is held in violation of the Constitution,

laws or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. 2254(a). A court may “issue an order directing

the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted,” unless the petition is

baseless. 28 U.S.C. 2243. Summary dismissal is appropriate only if the petition’s allegations

are vague, conclusory, incredible or frivolous. Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th

Cir. 1990).

2. PETITIONER’S LEGAL CLAIMS.

Petitioner argues that the sentencing court imposed the aggravated term in violation of

petitioner’s Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights to be tried by a jury and to be found guilty only

on proof beyond a reasonable doubt, as set forth in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004). 

Petitioner states a valid claim. Respondent therefore must answer.

CONCLUSION

The CLERK IMMEDIATELY SHALL SERVE respondent’s counsel with a copy of the

petition and memorandum of points and authorities, all attachments to it, and this order.

RESPONDENT SHALL FILE AND SERVE UPON PETITIONER, BY FEBRUARY 7, 2007, AN ANSWER

conforming to Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District

Courts. Respondent shall, by that date, also serve all other materials required by Habeas Local

Rule 2254-6(b). The record must be indexed. If petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he

shall file a TRAVERSE WITH THE COURT AND SERVE IT UPON RESPONDENT WITHIN THIRTY

DAYS OF SERVICE OF THE ANSWER. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 5, 2006 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-07338-WHA Document 2 Filed 12/05/06 Page 2 of 2