The following excerpt is from Nettles v. Davis, No. 2:16-cv-0243 AC P (E.D. Cal. 2016):
Id. (emphasis added). In other words, on the date 1170.126 went into effect, assault with intent to commit rape was statutorily defined as a sexually violent offense and was a disqualifying offense. The court then held that because petitioner had two prior convictions for assault with intent to commit rape he was disqualified from resentencing. Id. The determination that a conviction for assault with intent to commit rape, in and of itself, makes an inmate ineligible for resentencing makes any determination the court may have made as to the facts surrounding petitioner's specific offenses irrelevant. The state court's interpretation of 1170.126, and its determination that petitioner's convictions for assault with intent to commit rape constituted sexually violent offenses and therefore disqualified him from being eligible for resentencing, are questions of state sentencing law and therefore not cognizable in federal habeas. See Miller v. Vasquez, 868 F.2d 1116, 1118-19 (9th Cir. 1989) ("Whether assault with a deadly weapon
Page 4
qualifies as a 'serious felony' under California's sentence enhancement provisions is a question of state sentencing law.").
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.