Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_98-cv-21027/USCOURTS-cand-5_98-cv-21027-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 535
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus - Death Penalty
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Ptn for Writ of H/C - Stay of Execution

---

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

Case No. 5-98-cv-21027-JF

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF CLAIM 9

(DPSAGOK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

William Michael DENNIS,

 Petitioner,

 v.

Robert L. AYERS Jr., Warden of San Quentin

State Prison,

 Respondent.

Case Number 5-98-cv-21027-JF

DEATH-PENALTY CASE

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION OF CLAIM 9

[Docket No. 189]

In Claim 9 of his application for a writ of habeas corpus, Petitioner contends that “the

trial court’s failure to instruct on all elements of fetal murder and the multiple murder special

circumstance denied petitioner his right to due process and resulted in a fundamentally unfair

trial in violation of the fifth, sixth, eighth, and fourteenth amendments.” In prior orders, the

Court denied Petitioner relief on this claim.

The Court later granted Petitioner leave to file a motion for reconsideration of Claim 9 in

light of Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002), in which the Supreme Court of the United States

held that a jury—rather than a judge—must determine any fact that makes a defendant eligible

for the death penalty. Ring overruled Walton v. Arizona, 497 U.S. 639 (1990), and thus was a

“change of law” that might form the basis of a motion for reconsideration, Civil L.R. 7-9(b)(2).

However, Ring’s rule may not be applied retroactively on collateral review. Schriro v.

Case 5:98-cv-21027-JF Document 237 Filed 05/06/08 Page 1 of 2
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

Case No. 5-98-cv-21027-JF

ORDER ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF CLAIM 9

(DPSAGOK)

Summerlin, 542 U.S. 348 (2004). Petitioner attempts to overcome Summerlin by arguing that he

is not relying on Ring for the change it made in the law; indeed, as already was required in

California, it was a jury, not a judge, that set Petitioner’s penalty at death. Rather, for purposes

of his motion, he contends that Ring reëmphasizes a point that already was settled law—

specifically, that all elements of a crime must be proved before a criminal defendant may be

found guilty of that crime. This general principle is indisputably true, and the Court took it into

account when it denied relief on Claim 9.

In short, Petitioner acknowledges that Ring did not change the law in any way material to

Claim 9. Petitioner seeks reconsideration not on the basis of a change of law but because he

disagrees with the Court’s prior resolution of the claim. Such disagreement is, of course,

insufficient for the Court to grant a motion for reconsideration.

Accordingly, and good cause therefor appearing, Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration

of Claim 9 is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 5, 2008 _______________________________

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 5:98-cv-21027-JF Document 237 Filed 05/06/08 Page 2 of 2