Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-05812/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-05812-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Leonard L. Llamas
Petitioner
Kimberly A Seibel
Respondent

Document Text:

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEONARD L. LLAMAS,

Plaintiff,

v.

KIMBERLY A SEIBEL,

Defendant.

Case No. 16-cv-05812-WHO 

ORDER OF SERVICE

Re: Dkt. No. 1

Petitioner Leonard L. Llamas, a state prisoner incarcerated at Chuckawalla State Prison in 

Blythe, California has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. It 

is sufficiently pleaded to require service on the defendants.

I. BACKGROUND

Llamas was convicted by a jury of felony battery against a person with whom he had a 

spousal or dating relationship, under California Penal Code §273.5(a), in Santa Clara County 

Superior Court. After trial, the court conducted a 10-day hearing to assess whether two alleged 

“strikes” would be used as prior enhancements for the purposes of sentencing. The court found 

Llamas had a prior “strike” based on a conviction for violating Penal Code §220 in Santa Clara 

County, as well as a second “strike” based on a Colorado robbery, however Llamas successfully 

moved to dismiss the Colorado “strike” as a prior enhancement. Llamas was sentenced to eight 

years in state prison. Llamas received the upper term of four years on the felony battery charge, 

doubled by virtue of the remaining strike from the §220 violation. 

Llamas appealed his conviction to the California Court of Appeal, raising most of the 

issues raised in this federal habeas petition. The court denied his appeal and on June 23, 2015 

issued a twenty-eight page opinion affirming his conviction. That same day the court also denied 

Case 3:16-cv-05812-WHO Document 12 Filed 01/09/17 Page 1 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Llamas’ petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Llamas appealed the Court of Appeal’s decision to 

the Supreme Court of California, which on September 30, 2015 denied review. That same day the

Supreme Court of California also denied a petition for a writ of habeas corpus which Llamas had 

filed with the court. 

II. DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standard

This 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). It 

must “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. Summary dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations 

in the petition are vague or conclusory, palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false. See 

Hendricks v. Vasques, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990).

B. Llamas’s Legal Claims

Llamas seeks federal habeas corpus relief by raising the following claims: (1) he was 

denied his right to self-representation when the trial court denied his motion for self-representation 

after the jury was empaneled and before opening statements; (2) he received ineffective assistance 

of counsel because his counsel failed to present photographic evidence of Llamas’ clothes after his 

arrest showing a lack of blood; (3) he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his 

counsel failed to object to hearsay testimony that had already been deemed barred by an in limine

ruling; (4) he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his counsel failed to object to 

serious prosecutorial misconduct during closing argument; (5) his due process rights were violated 

because the trial court coerced a deadlocked jury into returning a guilty verdict; (6) the cumulative 

prejudice due to violations of Llamas’ due process rights and right to effective assistance of 

counsel deprived Llamas of a fair trial. Liberally construed, these claims appear colorable under 

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

Case 3:16-cv-05812-WHO Document 12 Filed 01/09/17 Page 2 of 3
3

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

Northern District of California

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown:

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

attachments thereto upon respondent and respondent’s counsel. 

2 Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on petitioner, within 60 days of the 

date of this order, an answer showing 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.

3 If the petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he must 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: January 9, 2017

______________________________________

WILLIAM H. ORRICK

United States District Judge

Case 3:16-cv-05812-WHO Document 12 Filed 01/09/17 Page 3 of 3