Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-06706/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-06706-0/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

Kelly Tevlin,

Petitioner,

 v.

James E. Tilton,

Respondent. /

NO. C 06-06706 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 Napa County conviction for continuous sexual abuse in violation of

California Penal Code (“Penal Code”) section 288.5. Petitioner has paid the filing fee. The Court

orders Respondent to show cause why the petition should not be granted. 

II. STATEMENT

On November 5, 2002, an Amended Information was filed charging Petitioner with one

count of lewd acts upon a child in violation of Penal Code section 288(c)(1); two counts of indecent

exposure with a prior conviction in violation of Penal Code section 314(1); and continuous sexual

abuse in violation of Penal Code section 288.5. The Amended Information also alleged that

Petitioner was a habitual sexual offender under Penal Code section 667.71, and had two prior strikes

under Penal Code section 667(b)–(i). Petitioner plead not guilty and denied the special allegations.

On March 10, 2003, the day set for trial, Petitioner changed his plea to no contest to the

charge under Penal Code section 288.5 and admitted the two prior strike convictions under Penal

Case 5:06-cv-06706-JW Document 3 Filed 12/20/06 Page 1 of 5
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

Code section 667(b)–(i). On August 27, 2003, Petitioner was sentenced to state prison for an

indeterminate term of 48 years to life and, pursuant to Penal Code section 667(a), a consecutive

mandatory term of 5 years.

On April 27, 2005, a petition for review was filed in the Supreme Court of California. On

April 29, 2005, the petition for review was denied. On August 13, 2004, a petition for a writ of

habeas corpus was filed in the Supreme Court of California. On May 28, 2005, the petition was

denied. On October 27, 2006, Petitioner filed this federal habeas petition.

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 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) Petitioner’s plea was not

voluntary, knowing, and intelligent under the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth

Amendments because Petitioner was not informed that his prior unsatisfactory performance while on

parole was an aggravating circumstance that could subject Petitioner to an aggravated term of 48

years to life; (2) Petitioner received ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of the Sixth

Amendment because his trial attorney did not inform him that prior unsatisfactory performance on

parole was an aggravating factor that could result in an aggravated term; and (3) Petitioner was

deprived of his Sixth Amendment right to a trial by jury of each factor enhancing his sentence

because the facts supporting the aggravated term of 48 years to life were neither admitted by

Petitioner nor found by a jury.

Case 5:06-cv-06706-JW Document 3 Filed 12/20/06 Page 2 of 5
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

In light of these claims, the Court will require Respondent to show cause why 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. 

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

Case 5:06-cv-06706-JW Document 3 Filed 12/20/06 Page 3 of 5
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 4

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: December 20, 2006 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge

Case 5:06-cv-06706-JW Document 3 Filed 12/20/06 Page 4 of 5
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:

Eric William Conner rayrobnsn@hotmail.com

California State Attorney General’s Office

455 Golden Gate Avenue

Suite 11000

San Francisco, CA 94102-7004

Dated: December 20, 2006 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: /s/ JW Chambers 

Elizabeth Garcia

Courtroom Deputy

Case 5:06-cv-06706-JW Document 3 Filed 12/20/06 Page 5 of 5