(DP) Dickey v. Davis ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 COLIN RAKER DICKEY, Case No. 1:06-cv-00357-JLT 12 Petitioner, DEATH PENALTY CASE 13 v. ORDER GRANTING CONDITIONAL WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 14 RONALD DAVIS, Warden of San Quentin State Prison, 15 Respondent.1 16 17 Colin Raker Dickey filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 18 (West) challenging his 1991 first-degree murder conviction, death eligibility findings, and death 19 sentence rendered in Fresno County Superior Court Case No. 416903-3. 20 Petitioner was convicted after a jury trial of murdering Marie Caton and Louis Freiri, and the 21 jury found true the special-circumstances of felony-murder robbery and felony-murder burglary 22 and multiple murder; and found guilty of first-degree robbery of each victim and first-degree 23 burglary of their residence. Petitioner admitted a prior felony conviction and waived personal 24 presence at the penalty phase. The jury returned a death verdict. 25 The California Supreme Court affirmed Petitioner’s conviction on direct appeal. People v. 26 Dickey, 35 Cal. 4th 884, 111 P.3d 921 (2005). That court denied Petitioner’s request for rehearing. 27 1 Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d), Ron Broomfield, Warden of San Quentin State Prison, is substituted as Respondent in place of his predecessor wardens. 1 People v. Dickey, California Supreme Court Case No. S025519. On February 21, 2006, the United 2 States Supreme Court denied Petitioner’s writ of certiorari. Dickey v. California, 546 U.S. 1177, 3 126 S. Ct. 1347, 164 L. Ed. 2d 60 (2006). The California Supreme Court, on collateral review, 4 denied Petitioner’s state habeas petitions. In re Dickey, S115079 (2005); In re Colin Raker Dickey, 5 No. S165302 (2012). 6 Petitioner began federal proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 in 2006. In 2013, the 7 Court bifurcated the claims with proceedings on the guilt phase claims to proceed separate from 8 and prior to, the penalty phase claims. The Court denied the guilt phase claims on the merits in 9 2017. Then, in 2019, the Court denied the penalty phase claims on the merits, denied the writ of 10 habeas corpus, and entered judgment, while also issuing a certificate of appealability as to certain 11 claims. 12 The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with 13 instructions to grant a conditional writ of habeas corpus as to the special-circumstances findings 14 and the imposition of the death penalty. Dickey v. Davis, 69 F.4th 624, 648 (9th Cir. 2023). The 15 Circuit held that the prosecution’s failure to correct false and misleading testimony elicited from its 16 principal witness, Gene Buchanan, in support of special-circumstances findings was material 17 under Napue.2 The Court reasoned that “if the jury had known Buchanan testified falsely, there was 18 a reasonable likelihood that this could have affected its decision to impose a capital sentence.” 19 Dickey, 69 F.4th at 644. The Ninth Circuit issued its mandate on June 22, 2023. Accordingly, the 20 Court ORDERS: 21 1. The Court GRANTS a conditional writ of habeas corpus as to the special- 22 circumstances findings and the imposition of the death penalty. 23 2. Within 90 days, the State of California may grant Petitioner a new trial on the 24 special-circumstances allegations or agree that he may be sentenced to a penalty other than death in 25 conformity with state law. 26 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve copies of this order to counsel for 27 Petitioner, David Senior, counsel for Respondent, Deputy Attorney General Justain Riley, and to 1 |Ron Broomfield, Warden of San Quentin State Prison. 2 3 IS SO ORDERED. 4| Dated: _September 7, 2023 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28