Anthony M. Delci v. Roberto A. Arias

Filing 8

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL OF PETITION by Magistrate Judge Patricia Donahue. For the foregoing reasons, the Court ORDERS Petitioner to show cause by no later than January 3, 2025, as to why the Petition should not be dismissed with prejudice because it fails to state a cognizable claim for federal habeas relief. [See document for further information.] (es)

1

2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

ANTHONY M. DELCI,
Petitioner,
v.

Case No. 2:24-cv-07531-MRA-PD
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE:
DISMISSAL OF PETITION

ROBERTO A. ARIAS,
Respondent.

17
18
19

On September 3, 2024, Petitioner Anthony M. Delci, proceeding pro se,

20

filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody

21

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The Court issues this Order to Show Cause

22

directed to Petitioner because the face of the Petition suggests that is does not

23

raise a claim that is cognizable on federal habeas review.

24

I. Procedural History and Petitioner’s Contentions

25

A. Trial, Direct Appeal, and Resentencing

26

In October 2017, a Los Angeles County Superior Court jury convicted

27

Petitioner of second-degree murder and acquitted him of first-degree murder.

28

[See Dkt. No. 1 at 2]; People v. Delci, No. B292466, 2019 WL 6337601, at *1

1

(Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 27, 2019) (“Delci I”). The jury also found true the

2

allegation that he committed the murder for the benefit of a criminal street

3

gang but found not true the allegation that a principal personally and

4

intentionally used and discharged a firearm in the commission of the murder.

5

See Delci, 2019 WL 6337601, at *1. Petitioner was subsequently sentenced to

6

30 years to life in state prison. See id. at *1.

7

Petitioner appealed, and on November 27, 2019, the California Court of

8

Appeal affirmed his conviction but struck the gang enhancement and

9

remanded for resentencing. See id. at 7. The California Supreme Court

10

denied review on March 17, 2020. See Cal. App. Cts. Case Info.

11

http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/ (search for Case No. S259762 ) (last

12

visited on Nov. 4, 2024). On October 27, 2020, the trial court resentenced

13

Petitioner to 20 years to life in state prison. See People v. Delci, No. B315269,

14

2023 WL 2365340, at *2 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 6, 2023) (“Delci II”).

15

B. Senate Bill 1437 and Petitioner’s Resentencing Petition

16

In January 2019, California Senate Bill 1437 was enacted to “amend the

17

felony murder rule and the natural and probable consequences doctrine, as it

18

relates to murder, to ensure that murder liability is not imposed on a person

19

who is not the actual killer, did not act with the intent to kill, or was not a

20

major participant in the underlying felony who acted with reckless

21

indifference to human life.” People v. Martinez, 31 Cal. App. 5th 719, 723

22

(2019) (citation omitted). The bill enacted former California Penal Code

23

section 1170.95(a) to allow those so convicted to “file a petition with the court

24

that sentenced the petitioner to have the petitioner’s murder conviction

25

vacated and to be resentenced on any remaining counts.” Id. (citation

26

omitted). On June 30, 2022, the California Legislature renumbered section

27

1170.95 as section 1172.6 “without substantive changes.” People v. Strong, 13

28

Cal. 5th 698, 708 n.2 (2022); Thompson v. Martinez, No. 2:23-02959 KK

2

1

(ADS), 2023 WL 8939217, at *1 n.1 (noting that “California Legislature

2

renumbered section 1170.95 as section 1172.6 without making substantive

3

changes to the statute”), accepted by 2024 WL 313612 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 25,

4

2024), appeal filed, No. 24-818 (9th Cir. filed Feb. 15, 2024).

5

On January 29, 2021, Petitioner filed a petition for resentencing

6

pursuant to former section 1170.95 in the superior court. [See Dkt. No. 1 at

7

4]; Delci II, 2023 WL 2365340, at *2. The superior court held an evidentiary

8

hearing on the petition at which Petitioner was represented by counsel. See

9

Delci II, 2023 WL 2365340, at *2. Thereafter, on September 21, 2021, the

10

superior court denied the petition [see Dkt. No. 1 at 4], finding that there was

11

“sufficient evidence to establish [Petitioner’s] guilt, beyond a reasonable

12

doubt, of second degree murder as a direct aider and abettor.” See Delci II,

13

2023 WL 2365340, at *2.

14

Petitioner appealed and filed an accompanying habeas petition in the

15

California Court of Appeal, which affirmed the superior court’s denial of his

16

resentencing petition and denied his habeas petition on March 6, 2023. See

17

Delci II, 2023 WL 2365340, at *9; see Cal. App. Cts. Case Info. http://

18

appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/ (search for Case No. B321013 in 2d App.

19

Dist.) (last visited on Nov. 4, 2024). Petitioner sought review in the California

20

Supreme Court, which denied review on May 31, 2023. See Cal. App. Cts.

21

Case Info. http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/ (search for Case No.

22

S279364) (last visited on Nov. 4, 2024).

23

C. Federal Habeas Petition

24

On September 3, 20224, Petitioner filed the instant Petition. Liberally

25

construed, see Woods v. Carey, 525 F.3d 886, 889-90 (9th Cir. 2008) (district

26

courts are obligated to liberally construe pro se litigant filings), the Petition

27

states the following two grounds for relief concerning the denial of his

28

resentencing petition:

3

1

1.

The superior court violated Petitioner’s Fifth, Sixth, and

2

Fourteenth Amendment rights by finding that he was guilty beyond a

3

reasonable doubt of second-degree murder as an aider and abettor because

4

that finding contravened the jury’s acquittal on the first-degree murder count

5

and its finding that a principal did not personally use a firearm. 1

6

2.

Petitioner’s appointed counsel deprived him of his Sixth

7

Amendment right to effective assistance by failing to present newly

8

discovered evidence at the hearing on his resentencing petition. 2

9

[See Dkt. No. 1 at 5-24, 51-66, 101-26.]

10

II. Discussion

11

A. Duty to Screen

12

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases requires the Court to

13

conduct a preliminary review of the Petition. Pursuant to Rule 4, the Court

14

must summarily dismiss a petition “[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the

15

petition . . . that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.”

16

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing 2254 Cases; see also Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908

17

F.2d 490 (9th Cir. 1990).

18

Rule 4 permits courts to dismiss claims “that are clearly not cognizable.”

19

Neiss v. Bludworth, 114 F.4th 1038, 1045 (9th Cir. 2024) (citations omitted).

20

In determining whether dismissal is warranted under Rule 4, “the standard is

21

not whether the claim will ultimately – or even likely – succeed or fail, but

22
23

1 In connection with this claim, Petitioner asserts that the superior court committed

25

several other errors in finding him ineligible for resentencing under California Penal
Code section 1170.95 and that there is no support in the record for that finding. [See
Dkt. No. 1 at 18-22, 116-26.] He also asks this Court to conduct an independent
review to determine whether he is eligible for resentencing. [See Dkt. No. 1 at 21.]

26

2 The Petition asserts three ineffective-assistance claims, but the second two appear

24

27
28

to be duplicative of the first. [See Dkt. No. 1 at 5-6, 20, 23-24, 51-66.] In any event,
as explained herein, any claim that counsel was ineffective in connection with the
hearing on Petitioner’s resentencing petition is not cognizable on federal habeas
review.

4

1

rather, whether the petition states a cognizable, non-frivolous claim.” Id. at

2

1046.

3
4
5
6
7

As explained below, a review of the Petition suggests that it does not

allege any claim that is cognizable on federal habeas review.
B. Failure to State a Cognizable Claim
1. Ground One
In his first ground for relief, Petitioner asserts several challenges to the

8

superior court’s finding that he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of

9

second-degree murder as an aider and abettor and, thus, ineligible for

10

resentencing under California Penal Code section 1170.95. [See Dkt. No. 1 at

11

5, 18-22, 116-26.]

12

a. Applicable Law

13

Federal habeas relief is available to state inmates who are “in custody

14

in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28

15

U.S.C. § 2254(a). Habeas relief is not available for errors in the interpretation

16

or application of state law. See Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. 216, 219 (2011);

17

Waddington v. Sarausad, 555 U.S. 179, 192 n.5 (2009) (“It is not the province

18

of a federal habeas court to reexamine state-court determinations on state-law

19

questions.”). “Absent a showing of fundamental unfairness, a state court’s

20

misapplication of its own sentencing laws does not justify federal habeas

21

relief.” Christian v. Rhode, 41 F.3d 461, 469 (9th Cir. 1994). “A habeas

22

petitioner must show that an alleged state sentencing error was ‘so arbitrary

23

or capricious as to constitute an independent due process violation.’” Nelson

24

v. Biter, 33 F. Supp. 3d 1173, 1177 (C.D. Cal. 2014) (quoting Richmond v.

25

Lewis, 506 U.S. 40, 50 (1992)).

26

b. Analysis

27

A review of the Petition’s first ground for relief suggests that it fails to

28

state a cognizable claim for relief. It asserts that the trial court committed

5

1

several errors in denying Petitioner’s section 1170.95 resentencing petition.

2

Federal courts have routinely held that challenges to denials of section

3

1170.95 resentencing petitions “pertain solely to the state court’s

4

interpretation and application of state sentencing law and therefore are not

5

cognizable” on federal habeas review. Cole v. Sullivan, 480 F. Supp. 3d 1089,

6

1097 (C.D. Cal. 2020); see, e.g., Clemons v. Johnson, No. 2:22-cv-05719-MWF

7

(AFM), 2023 WL 5184181, at *2 (C.D. Cal. June 16, 2023) (claims arising from

8

denial of section 1170.95 resentencing petitions were not cognizable on federal

9

habeas review), accepted by 2023 WL 5180324 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2023);

10

Allen, 2020 WL 1991426, at *13 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 7, 2020) (same); see also

11

Walker v. Cal. Sup. Ct., No. CV 22-4638-CAS(E), 2022 WL 11337927, at *2

12

(C.D. Cal. Sept. 13, 2022) (same under section 1172.6), accepted by 2022 WL

13

11269388 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 13, 2022); McCavitt v. Costello, No. 2:22-cv-1926-

14

KJM-KJN-P, 2022 WL 17813204, at *2-3 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 12, 2022) (same),

15

accepted by 2023 WL 2602019 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 22, 2023). Petitioner’s

16

challenges to his eligibility for resentencing under former section 1170.95

17

likewise present only state-law claims and therefore do not appear to be

18

cognizable on federal habeas review.

19

That Petitioner alludes to his Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment

20

rights [see Dkt. No. 1 at 14] is insufficient to transform his state-law claims

21

into cognizable federal ones. See Gray v. Netherland, 518 U.S. 152, 163 (1996)

22

(explaining that petitioner may not convert state-law claim into federal one by

23

making general appeal to constitutional guarantee); Cacoperdo v.

24

Demosthenes, 37 F.3d 504, 507 (9th Cir. 1994) (habeas petitioner’s mere

25

reference to Due Process Clause was insufficient to render his claims viable

26

under 14th Amendment.

27

Moreover, Petitioner cannot show that state courts’ denial of his

28

resentencing petition was “so arbitrary or capricious as to constitute an

6

1

independent due process” violation. Richmond, 506 U.S. at 50. The

2

California Court of Appeal held that he was ineligible to be resentenced

3

pursuant to California Penal Code section 1170.95 because “substantial

4

evidence support[ed] the [superior] court’s finding that [he] [was] guilty [of

5

second-degree murder] as a direct aider and abettor.” See Delci II, 023 WL

6

2365340, at *5; see id. at *6 (“Under the law, [Petitioner] is guilty of second

7

degree murder as an aider and abettor.”). When, as here, a petitioner is “not

8

entitled to resentencing under state law,” the failure to grant the requested

9

relief is not “arbitrary or capricious” and does “not deprive him of due

10

process.” Cole, 480 F. Supp. 3d at 1098; see also Torricellas v. Core, No. 22-cv-

11

1670-MMA-KSC, 2023 WL 2544558, at *7 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2023) (noting

12

that the “Supreme Court has not yet specified what requirements, if any, due

13

process imposes upon state law resentencing proceedings,” and that fact

14

“would alone be sufficient grounds to deny the Petition because there is no

15

‘clearly established’ federal law on which petitioner can rely” (citing Wright v.

16

Van Patten, 552 U.S. 120, 126 (2008) (per curiam))), accepted by 2023 WL

17

3990053 (S.D. Cal. June 13, 2023), appeal filed, No. 23-55640 (9th Cir. July

18

21, 2023).

19
20
21

As such, it appears that the Petition’s first ground for relief is not
cognizable and, thus, should be dismissed.
2.

Ground Two

22

In his second ground for relief, Petitioner contends that his appointed

23

counsel deprived him of his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance by

24

failing to present newly discovered evidence at the hearing on his

25

resentencing petition. [See Dkt. No. 1 at 5-6, 51-66.]

26

This claim does not appear to be cognizable on federal habeas review

27

because Petitioner did not have a constitutional right to counsel in connection

28

with his resentencing Petition. The Supreme Court has never held that a

7

1

criminal defendant has a constitutional right to counsel in” prosecuting a

2

petition for resentencing under section 11170.95. Martinez v. Koenig, No. CV

3

20-8361-VBF (JEM), 2021 WL 8015539, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2021)

4

(collecting cases), accepted by 2022 WL 1062072 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 4, 2022). To

5

the contrary, it has explicitly noted that “[t]here is no constitutional right to

6

an attorney in state post-conviction proceedings,” and thus, “a petitioner

7

cannot claim constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel in such

8

proceedings.” Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 752 (1991) (citations

9

omitted)); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2254(i) (“The ineffectiveness or incompetence of

10

counsel during Federal or State collateral post-conviction proceedings shall

11

not be a ground for relief in a proceeding arising under section 2254.”).

12

Accordingly, district courts within the Ninth Circuit routinely hold that

13

ineffective-assistance claims concerning resentencing-petition proceedings are

14

not cognizable on federal habeas review. See, e.g., Solorio v. Pfeiffer, No. CV

15

24-0574-ODW (AS), 2024 WL 3523857, *5 (July 24, 2024) (petitioner’s claim

16

that counsel was ineffective during resentencing-petition proceedings was not

17

cognizable because he did not have Sixth Amendment right to counsel in those

18

proceedings); Orcasitas v. Asuncion, No. 2:23-cv-01531-JGB (MAR), 2024 WL

19

1607504, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2024) (“Nor can Petitioner raise a federal

20

question by invoking the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, because even

21

though Cal. Penal Code [section] 1172.6 may permit the appointment of

22

counsel, ‘the Sixth Amendment guarantees no such right under federal law.’”;

23

collecting cases (citations omitted)), accepted by, 2024 WL 1604637 (C.D. Cal.

24

Apr. 10, 2024); Thompson v. Martinez, 2023 WL 8939217, *7 (C.D. Cal. Dec.

25

18, 2023) (“Petitioner’s contention that his trial counsel was ineffective at

26

[section 1172.6] resentencing proceedings and his appellate counsel was

27

ineffective on appeal from those proceedings ‘is simply untenable’” and “fails

28

to state a cognizable claim on federal habeas review.” (citation omitted)),

8

1

accepted by 2024 WL 313612 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2024), appeal filed, No. 21-

2

818 (9th Cir. filed Feb. 15, 2024).
As such, it appears that the Petition’s ineffective-assistance claim is not

3
4

cognizable and, therefore, should be dismissed.

5

III.

6

Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court ORDERS Petitioner to

7

show cause by no later than January 3, 2025, as to why the Petition should

8

not be dismissed with prejudice because it fails to state a cognizable claim for

9

federal habeas relief.

10

Petitioner is admonished that the Court will construe his

11

failure to file a response to this Order by January 3, 2025, as a

12

concession on his part that the Petition’s claims are not cognizable.

13

In that event, the Court will recommend that the Petition dismissed

14

prejudice for failure to allege a cognizable claim.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: November 21, 2024
PATRICIA DONAHUE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

9