(HC) Parker v. Napa Superior Court

District Court, E.D. California·Decided May 6, 2025·No. 1:25-cv-00367·Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 6 7 DEWAYNE PARKER, Case No. 25-cv-03041-TLT

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING PETITION 9 v. WITH LEAVE TO AMEND; DENYING EX PARTE APPLICATION; 10 NAPA SUPERIOR COURT, et al., GRANTING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS Defendants. 11 Re: Dkt. Nos. 7, 8

13 Dewayne Parker brings this petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. Section 14 2254. He also moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, Dkt. No. 8, which is granted. 15 Petitioner’s motion for ex parte habeas relief, Dkt. No. 7, is denied. 16 LEGAL STANDARD 17 This Court may entertain a petition for a writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person in 18 custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in 19 violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). It shall 20 “award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not 21 be granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant or person detained is not 22 entitled thereto.” Id. § 2243. 23 Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts 24 provides that a petition for writ of habeas corpus “must” be summarily dismissed “[i]f it plainly 25 appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the 26 district court.” 27 DISCUSSION 1 Petitioner filed a 28 U.S.C. section 2254 habeas petition in the Eastern District of 2 California from the Kern County Admission, Evaluation and Stabilization (AES) Center 3 apparently challenging his Napa County Superior Court conviction. Dkt No. 1. He listed a 4 judgment of conviction date of January 31, 2025, and a length of sentence of “January 25 2023 - 2 5 years.” He noted “incompetence of defendant” and a ruling under Penal Code section 1369 from a 6 January 31, 2025 trial. He indicated that he raised the issues of “incompetence procedure and no 7 bail bench warrant” to the First District Court of Appeal and received a result of overruled on 8 February 17, 2023. He also indicated that the First District Court of Appeal returned a result of 9 “overrule” in March 2023 because of lack of jurisdiction. The petition raised the first ground of 10 counsel Aric Bright providing deficient representation in failing to properly prepare and present a 11 defense, failing to request or negotiate a plea bargain, and failing to exclude prejudicial evidence 12 regarding time credits. The petition also raised a second ground of conditions of being locked up. 13 The petition was transferred to the Northern District of California. Dkt. No. 3. Petitioner 14 then filed another petition, Dkt. No. 5, also from the AES Center, referencing California Penal 15 Code section 1487 and 28 U.S.C. section 2254 and claiming that petitioner is entitled to discharge 16 because he has been incarcerated for two years. Petitioner also filed an “ex parte federal habeas 17 corpus” stating that he is not a danger to self or others, and he did two years of time under section 18 1370, which is the maximum, and asking for release. 19 The First District Court of Appeal docket search shows that in case number A167324, the 20 state appellate court dismissed petitioner’s appeal on September 1, 2023 for lack of jurisdiction. 21 The court stated:

22 Defendant Dewayne Keith Parker had criminal cases - involving charges for murder, burglary, and other crimes - pending in Fresno 23 County Superior Court. The court committed him to the State Department of State Hospitals in Napa County after finding him 24 incompetent to stand trial. (Pen. Code, § 1368; undesignated statutory references are to this code.) While there, Parker allegedly assaulted a 25 peer and he was charged with assault by means likely to cause great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(4)). During his appearance on the 26 assault case, Parker’s counsel questioned Parker’s competency. On January 17, 2023, the Napa County Superior Court found Parker not 27 competent to stand trial and committed him to Napa State Hospital. On March 2, 2023, the medical director of Napa State Hospital filed 1 a certification Parker was mentally competent. The director requested a hearing on his competency as well as an advisement that the sheriff 2 return Parker to the trial court within 10 days. (§ 1372, subds. (a)(2), (c)(1).) The court issued a March 6 order scheduling Parker’s hearing 3 for March 13. He did not file a notice of appeal of this order.

4 Parker’s appeal solely addresses the trial court’s alleged failure to adhere to procedures for assessing his competency after the March 6, 5 2023 order. Specifically, he challenges the court’s issuance of a no- bail bench warrant after the state hospital allegedly failed to deliver 6 him to Napa County for further competency proceedings. But that order appears nowhere in the record. And there is no notice of appeal 7 of that alleged order. Indeed, there is no information in the record beyond March 6. The People moved to dismiss Parker’s appeal for 8 lack of jurisdiction, and we agree. (People v. Zarazua (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 1054, 1061.) 9 We do not liberally construe Parker’s February 17, 2023 notice of 10 appeal of the order finding him incompetent to stand trial to reach the alleged no-bail bench warrant. (Filbin v. Fitzgerald (2012) 211 11 Cal.App.4th 154, 173.) “‘Despite the rule favoring liberal interpretation of notices of appeal, a notice of appeal will not be 12 considered adequate if it completely omits any reference to the judgment being appealed.’” (Baker v. Castaldi (2015) 235 13 Cal.App.4th 218, 225-226.) The February 2023 notice of appeal does not refer to any events in March 2023, the matters addressed in 14 Parker’s opening brief. Nor can it - Parker challenges the trial court’s actions allegedly occurring after he filed the February 2023 notice of 15 appeal. (Ibid. [construing a notice of appeal as a premature appeal from an entirely different order entered months later was well 16 “‘beyond liberal construction’”].)

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

(HC) Parker v. Napa Superior Court, (E.D. Cal. 2025).

(HC) Parker v. Napa Superior Court ((HC) Parker v. Napa Superior Court) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

McCleskey v. Zant
499 U.S. 467 (Supreme Court, 1991)
Muth v. Fondren
676 F.3d 815 (Ninth Circuit, 2012)
Olson v. Cory
673 P.2d 720 (California Supreme Court, 1983)
People v. Zarazua
179 Cal. App. 4th 1054 (California Court of Appeal, 2009)
People v. Scaffidi
11 Cal. App. 4th 145 (California Court of Appeal, 1992)
Hall v. Superior Court of San Diego County
3 Cal. App. 5th 792 (California Court of Appeal, 2016)