Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-04516/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-04516-0/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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

Richard Quilopras,

Petitioner,

 v.

James Yates, Warden,

Respondent.

 /

NO. C 05-04516 JW 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS PETITION

I. INTRODUCTION

Petitioner, represented by counsel, filed a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2254 challenging his San Mateo County conviction for murder with a firearm enhancement. Petitioner has

paid the filing fee. The Court orders Respondent to show cause why the petition should not be granted. 

II. STATEMENT

A San Mateo County jury convicted Petitioner of murder with a firearm enhancement. On direct

appeal, the state appellate court affirmed Petitioner’s conviction in 2002. The state supreme court affirmed

the conviction in 2004. In 2002, Petitioner was sentenced to 25 to life plus one year in state prison. 

Petitioner filed the instant federal habeas petition on November 5, 2005. 

III. DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

A district court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person in custody

pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the

Case 5:05-cv-04516-JW Document 4 Filed 01/05/06 Page 1 of 4
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

Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); Rose v. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19,

21 (1975). 

A district court shall “award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why

the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant or person detained is

not entitled thereto.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243. 

B. Petitioner’s Claim

Petitioner alleges the following claims for federal habeas relief: (1) the trial court erroneously

allowed prosecution on aiding and abetting theory where separately tried actual killer was acquitted based

upon the testimony of the same key witness; (2) Petitioner's conviction and confinement are unlawful

because the trial court refused to inform the jury or to allow Petitioner to inform the jury that Murphy (the

actual shooter) was acquitted. This deprived Petitioner of his Sixth Amendment rights by improperly

limiting his cross-examination of Dennis Agan (the key witness in the trial) and further deprived Petitioner of

his Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights to present evidence in his own Defense. Further, the

Court of Appeal, in the last reasoned opinion, and the Supreme Court by denying the Petition for review,

unreasonably applied controlling United States Supreme Court precedent; (3) Petitioner was convicted in

violation of his Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel when the court restrict trial

counsel from introducing evidence of Murphy's acquittal; (4) Petitioner was convicted in violation of his

Sixth Amendment right to confrontation and his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to Due Process

when the trial court permitted Dennis Agan to testify despite the terms of his immunity agreement which

required him to testify to the police version of events rather than truthfully; (5) the trial court improperly

denied petitioner his right to testify when it ruled that he could be impeached with his prior murder

conviction in violation of his Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

In light of these claims, this Court will require Respondent to show cause why the Petitioner's

petition for a writ of habeas corpus should not be granted.

IV. CONCLUSION 

1. The Clerk shall serve by mail a copy of this Order and the petition and all attachments upon

Respondent and Respondent’s attorney, the Attorney General of the State of California. 

The Clerk shall also serve a copy of this Order on the Petitioner. 

Case 5:05-cv-04516-JW Document 4 Filed 01/05/06 Page 2 of 4
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

3

2. Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on Petitioner, within sixty days of the

issuance of this order, an answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the Rules

Governing Section 2254 Cases, showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not be

granted. Respondent shall file with the answer and serve on Petitioner a copy of all

portions of the underlying state criminal record that have been transcribed previously and

that are relevant to a determination of the issues presented by the petition. 

3. If Petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he shall do so by filing a traverse with the

Court and serving it on Respondent within thirty days of his receipt of the answer.

4. Respondent may file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds in lieu of an answer, as set

forth in the Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254

Cases. If Respondent files such a motion, Petitioner shall file with the Court and serve on

Respondent an opposition or statement of non-opposition within thirty days of receipt of

the motion, and Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on Petitioner a reply within

fifteen days of receipt of any opposition.

5. It is Petitioner’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Petitioner is reminded that all

communications with the Court must be served on Respondent by mailing a true copy of

the document to Respondent’s counsel. Petitioner must keep the Court and all parties

informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper captioned “Notice of Change

of Address.” He must comply with the Court’s Orders in a timely fashion. Failure to do so

may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 41(b). 

Dated: January 5, 2006 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge

Case 5:05-cv-04516-JW Document 4 Filed 01/05/06 Page 3 of 4
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

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO:

Alison Minet Adams shark@rain.org

California State Attorney General’s Office

455 Golden Gate Avenue

Suite 11000

San Francisco, CA 94102-7004

Dated: January 5, 2006 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: /s/ JW Chambers 

Melissa Peralta

Courtroom Deputy

Case 5:05-cv-04516-JW Document 4 Filed 01/05/06 Page 4 of 4