Donna Lee v. Debra Jacquez, 788 F.3d 1124

Donna Kay Lee was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder in California and sentenced to two life terms without parole; her direct appeal was denied and the California Supreme Court denied subsequent state habeas relief citing Dixon and related authorities.
Lee returned to federal court, pursued a stayed and amended habeas petition, and sought review of eleven claims the California Supreme Court treated as procedurally barred under Ex parte Dixon (claims were omitted from direct appeal).
The district court treated Dixon as an adequate and independent state-law procedural bar and dismissed most claims as procedurally defaulted; the Ninth Circuit previously remanded for the State to prove Dixon’s adequacy and independence under Bennett v. Mueller.
On remand the State presented statistical evidence (invocation of Dixon in ~7–21% of California Supreme Court habeas denials around the relevant period) to show regular application; Lee produced examples showing failures to invoke Dixon where it arguably applied.
The Ninth Circuit held the State failed to meet its burden to prove Dixon was an adequate procedural ground at the time of Lee’s default and reversed, remanding for merits consideration of Lee’s remaining habeas claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Dixon was an adequate state procedural bar at time of Lee’s default	Lee: Dixon was inconsistently applied and therefore inadequate to bar federal review	State: Dixon was established; statistical evidence shows predictable application similar to Walker v. Martin’s discretionary rule	Held: State failed to prove adequacy; Dixon inadequate for bar at the relevant time
Whether the court must decide Dixon’s independence as an affirmative defense	Lee: Independence not proven; adequacy threshold dispositive	State: Argued Dixon is independent and adequate	Held: Court did not decide independence because adequacy failed (no need to reach independence)
Proper allocation of burdens under Bennett v. Mueller	Lee: She put adequacy at issue; State must prove regular and consistent application	State: Met initial pleading burden and offered statistics as proof	Held: Bennett burden-shifting applies; State must carry ultimate burden and failed to do so
Whether Walker v. Martin allows toleration of inconsistency for Dixon	Lee: Walker does not rescue a mandatory rule applied inconsistently	State: Walker permits adequacy findings for discretionary rules despite some inconsistencies	Held: Walker inapposite to mandatory Dixon; inconsistent application undermines adequacy

Ex parte Dixon, 264 P.2d 513 (Cal. 1953) (establishes rule barring state habeas claims that should have been raised on direct appeal)
In re Harris, 855 P.2d 391 (Cal. 1993) (California Supreme Court clarifying exceptions to Dixon)
In re Robbins, 959 P.2d 311 (Cal. 1998) (further guidance on Dixon and application going forward)
Bennett v. Mueller, 322 F.3d 573 (9th Cir. 2003) (sets burden-shifting framework for proving adequacy of state procedural bars)
Beard v. Kindler, 558 U.S. 53 (2009) (discusses adequacy and discretionary state procedural rules)
Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (1991) (federal habeas review barred where state ground is independent and adequate)