Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-04280/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-04280-2/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)

---

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

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS — C-04-04280 RMW

MAG

E-FILED on 8/22/07

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

CHRISTOPER PETER KAZAS,

Petitioner,

v.

J.A. WOODFORD,

Director, California Department of Corrections

Respondent.

No. C-04-04280 RMW

ORDER GRANTING RELIEF FROM

JUDGMENT; ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

[Re Docket No. 7]

Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254

challenging his incarceration for second degree murder conviction. On September 27, 2005, this

court dismissed the petition without prejudice, finding that petitioner had not exhausted the state

remedies available to him. On that date, the court also entered judgment against petitioner,

dismissing his petition without prejudice. Petitioner now seeks relief from that judgment, asserting

that the court should have instead stayed the action pending exhaustion of his available state

remedies. For the reasons set forth below, the court grants petitioner's motion for relief and orders

respondent to show cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not be granted. 

I. BACKGROUND 

On April 22, 2001, Petitioner ran a red light attempting to flee from a California Highway

Patrol officer. His vehicle collided with a van and killed its driver and injured the driver's wife. 

Case 5:04-cv-04280-RMW Document 10 Filed 08/22/07 Page 1 of 6
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

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS — C-04-04280 RMW

MAG 2

Petitioner was tried before a jury in the Superior Court of California, Sonoma County for second

degree murder and other charges. Two theories of malice for the second degree murder charge were

advanced by the prosecution. One theory required actual awareness and wanton disregard of risk to

life. Another was second degree felony murder which did not require proof of malice but required

proof of an inherently dangerous felony. 

On April 15, 2002, the jury convicted petitioner of second degree murder but did not specify

which theory they relied on. Petitioner was sentenced to fifteen years to life for second degree

murder, together with four years for felony drunk driving and three years for felony hit-and-run,

which were to run concurrently with the 15-years-to-life sentence. 

Petitioner filed this petition after an unsuccessful appeal to the Court of Appeal of California

and Petition for Review to the California Supreme Court. His petition for writ of habeas corpus

before this court challenges his conviction for second degree murder based on a change in California

law. The court determined that petitioner had not exhausted his claim based on a California

Supreme Court decision, People v. Howard, 34 Cal. 4th 1129 (2005), decided while his conviction

was being appealed. As set forth above, petitioner asks the court to grant relief from its judgment

dismissing the petition without prejudice.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

This court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus on "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 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 

As the ground for federal habeas relief, petitioner asserts that his rights to due process and a

fair trial, under the 5th, 6th, and 14th amendments of the Constitution, have been violated by his

conviction for a non-malice type of second degree murder based on petitioner's violation of

Case 5:04-cv-04280-RMW Document 10 Filed 08/22/07 Page 2 of 6
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 1

 Petitioner asserts that Howard did not change California Supreme Court law, because the Court

merely applied its own precedent and did not overrule or distinguish any of its prior cases. 

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS — C-04-04280 RMW

MAG 3

California Vehicle Code Section 2800.2, which has been held by the California Supreme Court not

to be an inherently dangerous felony for purpose of the second degree felony-murder rule. See

People v. Howard, 34 Cal. 4th 1129 (2005).

The petitioner's claim appears to have merit. Petitioner was charged of second degree

murder based on two theories: (1) willful and wanton disregard of risk to life, and (2) second degree

felony murder. It was not clear under which theory petitioner was convicted of second degree

murder. As a basis for second degree felony murder, the alleged inherently dangerous felony

committed by petitioner was the violation of California Vehicle Code section 2800.2 by fleeing or

attempting to elude a pursuing peace officer and driving the pursued vehicle in a willful or wanton

disregard for the safety of persons or property. However, the California Supreme Court held in

Howard that violation of section 2800.2 is not an inherently dangerous felony. Howard, 34 Cal. 4th

at 1129. Thus, the California Supreme Court has abolished one of the possible grounds on which

petitioner was convicted. Therefore, to the extent that petitioner's conviction was based on the

felony murder rule, there may be grounds under Howard for overturning his conviction.

C. Exhaustion of State Remedy

In this case, the California Supreme Court ruling in Howard, handed down after the petition

was filed in this case, changed the law relating to whether the violation of section 2800.2 is an

inherently dangerous felony for purpose of the second degree felony murder rule.1

 Prior to this

court's dismissal of the action but after the denial of his original appeal, petitioner filed a petition for

habeas corpus in Sonoma County Superior Court. The Superior Court issued an order denying the

writ on August 19, 2005, holding that Howard is not retroactive. Petitioner subsequently filed a

petition at the California Court of Appeal, which likewise denied the petition, citing LaRue v.

McCarthy, 833 F.3d 1140 (9th Cir. 1987), which held that the failure of California courts to give

retroactive application to a decision that a felony murder conviction cannot be based on predicate

felony of child abuse did not violate defendant's constitutional rights to equal protection and due

process. Id. at 143. Finally, on September 30, 2005, following this court's dismissal without

Case 5:04-cv-04280-RMW Document 10 Filed 08/22/07 Page 3 of 6
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

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS — C-04-04280 RMW

MAG 4

prejudice of petitioner's federal habeas petition, petitioner filed for habeas relief from the California

Supreme Court. On November 15, 2006, that court denied the petition without comment.

The court finds that petitioner has now exhausted his claim based on Howard. To avoid any

question regarding the statute of limitations for bringing a federal habeas petition on this claim, the

court grants petitioner's motion for relief from judgment. The court vacates its September 27, 2005

judgment dismissing the petition without prejudice and orders respondent to show cause why the

petition for writ of habeas corpus should not be granted.

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, petitioner's motion for relief from judgment is granted. The clerk

shall reopen the case. 

Further, respondent is ordered to show cause why petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas

corpus, filed on October 8, 2004 as supplemented on January 31, 2005, should not be granted. 

 1. The clerk shall serve by mail a copy of this order and the petition and all attachments

thereto upon the respondent and the respondent's attorney, the Attorney General of

the State of California. 

 2. Respondent shall file with the court, 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 a copy of all portions of the state record that

have been transcribed previously and that are relevant to a determination of the issues

presented by the petition. If petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he shall do so

by filing a traverse within thirty days of the filing of the answer.

 3. 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 within sixty days of the issuance of this order. If respondent files

such a motion, petitioner shall file with the court an opposition or a statement of nonCase 5:04-cv-04280-RMW Document 10 Filed 08/22/07 Page 4 of 6
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

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS — C-04-04280 RMW

MAG 5

opposition within thirty days of the filing of the motion, and respondent shall file

with the court a reply within fifteen days of the filing of any opposition.

DATED: 8/22/07

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

Case 5:04-cv-04280-RMW Document 10 Filed 08/22/07 Page 5 of 6
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

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS — C-04-04280 RMW

MAG 6

Notice of this document has been electronically sent to:

Counsel for Petitioner:

Rommel Bondoc sdm819@sbcglobal.net

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel that have not

registered for e-filing under the court's CM/ECF program.

Dated: 8/22/07 /s/ MAG

Chambers of Judge Whyte

Case 5:04-cv-04280-RMW Document 10 Filed 08/22/07 Page 6 of 6