Source: http://ca.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20190827_0005885.NCA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2020-07-09 11:50:58
Document Index: 83187789

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2254', '§ 2243', '§ 187', '§ 2254', '§ 2243', '§ 2254', '§ 2254', '§ 2254']

FindACase™ | Daniel v. Neuschmid
Daniel v. Neuschmid
DOMINIC TYRELL DANIEL, Petitioner,
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE; GRANTING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS; GRANTING LEAVE TO SUPPLEMENT RECORD Re: Dkt. Nos. 4, 5
Petitioner, an inmate at California State Prison - Solano, filed this pro se writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. His petition is now before the Court for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2243 and Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. Petitioner is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt. No. 5.
According to the petition, Petitioner was convicted by a jury of second-degree murder (Cal. Penal Code § 187). Dkt. No. 1 (“Pet.”) at 2. He was sentenced to fifteen years to life in state prison. Pet. at 1. His conviction was affirmed by the California Court of Appeal, and his petition for review was denied by the California Supreme Court. Pet. at 3. Petitioner filed a state habeas petition, alleging the claims raised herein, that was denied by the California Supreme Court on April 10, 2019. Pet. at 3. The instant action was filed on June 12, 2019. See Pet.
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); 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.
Petitioner alleges the following claims for federal habeas relief: (1) ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to pursue a diminished mental capacity defense; (2) insufficient evidence to support the conviction; (3) Miranda violation; and (4) ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for failing to raise these three claims. Pet. at 7-31. Liberally construed, the claims appear to state cognizable federal claims under § 2254 and merit an answer from Respondent. See Zichko v. Idaho, 247 F.3d 1015, 1020 (9th Cir. 2001) (federal courts must construe pro se petitions for writs of habeas corpus liberally).
C. Motion to Supplement Record
Petitioner has requested that the record be supplemented with the exhibits attached to his motion. Dkt. No. 4. This request is GRANTED to the extent that these exhibits were before the state court when the state court addressed these claims. In reviewing the reasonableness of a state court's decision to which § 2254(d)(1) applies, a district court may rely only on the record that was before the state court. See Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170, 180 (2011) (holding that new evidence presented at evidentiary hearing cannot be considered in assessing whether state court's decision “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law” under § 2254(d)(1)). Therefore, a federal court generally is precluded from supplementing the record with facts adduced for the first time at a federal evidentiary hearing when a petitioner's claim has been adjudicated on the merits in state court. See Pinholster, 563 U.S. at 182-83 (“It would be strange to ask federal courts to analyze whether a state court's adjudication resulted in a decision that unreasonably applied federal law to facts not before the state court.”).