Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-02119/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-02119-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Sergio Octavio Pena
Petitioner
James E. Tilton
Respondent

Document Text:

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SERGIO OCTAVIO PENA,

Petitioner, No. C 07-2119 PJH

v. ORDER REOPENING CASE;

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

JAMES E. TILTON,

Respondent.

_______________________________/

On April 16, 2007, petitioner Sergio Pena (“Pena”), a California prisoner who is

currently incarcerated, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

2254. On April 23, 2007, the court stayed and administratively closed the case so that

Pena could exhaust his claims in state court. Pena has since exhausted his claims.

BACKGROUND

In 2003, a San Mateo County jury convicted Pena of second degree murder. The

trial court sentenced Pena to sixteen years to life in prison. Petitioner unsuccessfully

appealed his conviction to the California Court of Appeal, and the California Supreme Court

thereafter denied review on January 18, 2006. Pena subsequently filed a habeas petition

in the state superior court on April 16, 2007, the same day that he filed his federal habeas

petition with this court. As noted above, the court stayed the federal petition pending

exhaustion of Pena’s claims in the state courts.

On June 1, 2007, the state superior court denied Pena’s habeas petition. The

California Court of Appeal subsequently denied habeas relief on September 7, 2007, and

the California Supreme Court also denied relief on May 14, 2008. On June 13, 2008, Pena

filed an application to reopen this case and an amended petition for writ of habeas corpus,

Case 4:07-cv-02119-PJH Document 7 Filed 06/17/08 Page 1 of 3
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

as required by the court’s April 23, 2007 order.

DISCUSSION

A. Habeas Standard

This court may entertain a petition for a 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). It 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.” Id. at § 2243.

B. Legal Claims

Pena raises three claims for federal habeas relief: (1) that he was denied due

process when the state trial court instructed the jury in accordance with the prosecution’s

“mutual combat” jury instruction, and rejected Pena’s related jury instruction which

incorporated the defense’s theory of the case; (2) that he was denied due process when

the state court admitted gang-related evidence, including the testimony of a gang expert

and evidence regarding Pena’s gang affiliation; and (3) that he received ineffective

assistance from his state appellate counsel when counsel failed to raise the above two

claims on direct appeal in the state courts. Liberally construed, the claims appear

colorable under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and merit an answer from respondent.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown,

1. Petitioner’s case is REOPENED.

2. The clerk shall serve by certified mail a copy of this order and the petition and

all attachments thereto upon respondents. The clerk shall also serve a copy of this order

on petitioner.

3. Respondents shall file with the court and serve on petitioner, within 60 days of

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

Case 4:07-cv-02119-PJH Document 7 Filed 06/17/08 Page 2 of 3
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

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

issued. Respondent shall file with the answer and serve on petitioner a copy of all portions

of the administrative record that are relevant to a determination of the issues presented by

the petition.

4. If the petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he shall do so by filing a

 traverse with the court and serving it on respondent within 30 days of his receipt of the

answer.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 17, 2008

______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:07-cv-02119-PJH Document 7 Filed 06/17/08 Page 3 of 3