Fox

Mitchell v. Fox

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaJune 20, 20234:11-cv-02705California1,384 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

I. BACKGROUND

16 Petitioner is presently incarcerated in a California state prison facility. After Petitioner 17 proceeded in pro per at trial, a jury convicted him of eight counts of sexual penetration by a 18 foreign object, Cal. Penal Code § 289(a)(1); three counts of forcible oral copulation, Cal. Penal 19 Code § 288a(c)(2); and one count of forcible rape, Cal. Penal Code § 261(a)(2). ECF No. 80-1 at 20 1. Those convictions were affirmed on direct review by a California Court of Appeal. Id. 21 Petitioner then filed a petition for review at the California Supreme Court, ECF No. 80-2, which 22 was summarily denied, ECF No. 80-3. 23 In 2011, Petitioner initiated this action by filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus in 24 25 1 The Clerk of Court is directed to substitute Gena Jones in place of the previously named 26 respondent. See Ortiz-Sandoval v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 891, 894 (9th Cir.), as amended (May 8, 1996) (rules governing relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 require person in custody pursuant to judgment of 27 state court to name state officer having custody of him as respondent); Stanley v. Cal. Sup. Ct., 21 federal court. ECF No. 1. Judge Saundra Brown…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.