Kevin Coleman v. People of the State of California

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: October 15, 2025
• Docket: 8:25-cv-02082
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3

4 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 9 KEVIN COLEMAN, NO. SACV-25-02082-ODW (AGR) 10 Petitioner, ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR 11 v. WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

12 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 13 Respondent. 14

15 16 For the reasons discussed below, the Court summarily dismisses the 17 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. 18 I. 19 PROCEDURAL HISTORY 20 As summarized by the California Court of Appeal: “[Petitioner] was 21 22 rummaging through an unlocked car early one morning when the car’s owner, 23 Adam C., caught him in the act and chased him down the street. [Petitioner] ran 24 to his car; as he drove away, he pointed a loaded gun at Adam and shot him in 25 the chest.” People v. Coleman, 2024 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 5925, *1 (Sept. 19, 26 27 28 1 2024). “Adam was hospitalized and underwent surgery to treat his injuries.” Id. at 2 *3. 3 The jury found Petitioner not guilty of attempted murder with premeditation 4 5 and deliberation. The jury found him guilty of shooting at another person from a 6 motor vehicle in violation of Cal. Penal Code § 26100(c) and found true 7 enhancements for inflicting great bodily injury (§ 12022.7(a)) and discharging a 8 firearm causing great bodily injury (§ 12022.53(d)). The court sentenced 9 10 Petitioner to 30 years to life in prison for the conviction and firearm enhancement, 11 and stayed punishment on the other enhancement. Id. at *5. 12 The California Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment. Id. at *14. The 13 California Supreme Court denied the petition for review. People v. Coleman, 14 15 2024 Cal. LEXIS 6625 (Nov. 26, 2024). 16 On September 9, 2025, Petitioner constructively filed a Petition for Writ of 17 Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody (“Petition”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 18 2254. 19 20 II. 21 DISCUSSION 22 Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States 23 Courts provides that “[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any 24 25 attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the 26 judge must dismiss the petition and direct the clerk to notify the petitioner.” Here, 27 summary dismissal is warranted on both grounds for relief alleged in the Petition. 28 1 A federal court may not grant a petition for writ of habeas corpus by a 2 person in state custody with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the 3 merits in state court unless it (1) “resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or 4 5 involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as 6 determined by the Supreme Court of the United States”; or (2) “resulted in a 7 decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of 8 the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); 9 10 Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 98 (2011). “‘[C]learly established Federal law’ 11 . . . is the governing legal principle or principles set forth by the Supreme Court at 12 the time the state court rendered its decision.” Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 13 71-72 (2003); see White v. Woodall, 572 U.S. 415, 419 (2014). 14 15 In Ground One, Petitioner contends that the trial court erred in failing to 16 instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of negligent discharge of a firearm 17 under Cal. Penal Code § 246.3(a). The California Court of Appeal assumed 18 without deciding that negligent discharge of a firearm is a lesser included offense 19 20 of shooting at another person from a motor vehicle. Coleman, 2023 Cal. App. 21 Unpub. LEXIS 5925, at *7. The Court found no substantial evidence that 22 Petitioner’s discharge of the firearm was grossly negligent. “It is undisputed that 23 [Petitioner] – who was no stranger to firearms – drew and pointed a loaded gun in 24 25 Adam’s direction from only seven feet away and then intentionally pulled the 26 trigger, striking Adam in the upper torso near his heart.” Id. at *8. The Court 27 28 1 concluded that the trial court was not required to instruct on the lesser included 2 offense and Petitioner could not show prejudice. Id. at *8-*9. 3 A state court’s failure “to instruct on lesser included offenses in a non- 4 5 capital case does not present a federal constitutional question.” Windham v. 6 Merkle, 163 F.3d 1092, 1106 (9th Cir. 1998). The Supreme Court has held that a 7 criminal defendant in a death penalty case has a constitutional right to have the 8 jury instructed on a lesser included offense under certain circumstances but left 9 10 open the question of “whether the Due Process Clause would require the giving of 11 such instructions in a non-capital case.” Beck v. Alabama, 447 U.S. 625, 638 n.7 12 (1980). When, as here, the Supreme Court leaves open an issue, Petitioner 13 cannot show that the state court’s decision is contrary to, or an unreasonable 14 15 application of, clearly established federal law. Carey v. Musladin, 549 U.S. 70, 77 16 (2006) (“Given the lack of holdings from this Court,” the “state court’s decision 17 was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal 18 law”). Ground One does not state a claim for federal habeas relief. 19 20 In Ground Two, Petitioner contends that Cal. Penal Code § 1385(c)(2)(C), 21 as amended, requires dismissal of an enhancement that would result in a 22 sentence of more than 20 years. The California Court of Appeal rejected this 23 argument and held that “a trial court’s authority to strike an enhancement under 24 25 subdivision (c)(2)(C) to be discretionary, not mandatory.” Coleman, 2023 Cal. 26 App. Unpub. LEXIS 5925, at *11 (citing People v. Mendoza, 88 Cal. App. 5th 287, 27 297 (2023); People v. Lipscomb, 87 Cal. App. 5th 9, 17 (2022)). 28 The California Supreme Court has since rejected the argument that Cal. 2 Penal Code § 1385(c)(2)(C) creates even a rebuttable presumption in favor of 3 4 dismissal of the enhancement. People v. Walker, 16 Cal. 5th 1024, 1033-34 5 | (2024). The California Supreme Court's interpretation of a state sentencing 6 | statute, including Cal. Penal Code § 1385(c)(2)(C), is binding on this court on federal habeas review. Bradshaw v. Richey, 546 U.S. 74, 76 (2005) (“We have 8 9 repeatedly held that a state court’s interpretation of state law, including one

10 | announced on direct appeal of the challenged conviction, binds a federal court 11 | sitting in habeas corpus.”). Ground Two does not state a claim for federal habeas 2 relief. 13 lll. 14 15 ORDER 16 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of 17 Habeas Corpus is dismissed and that Judgment be entered denying the Petition 18 19 and dismissing this action with prejudice. 20 21 “a

DATED: October 15, 2025 23 OTIS D. WRIGHT II 24 United States District Judge 25 26 27 28