Colleen Mary Rohan, et al v. Jill Brown, et al

Filing 715

ORDER DENYING CERTAIN RECORD-BASED CLAIMS by Judge William Alsup denying 667 Motion ; denying 698 Motion (dt, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/2/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
13
14
15

OSCAR GATES,
Petitioner,

16
17
18

No. C 88-2779 WHA
ORDER DENYING CERTAIN
RECORD-BASED CLAIMS

v.
KEVIN CHAPPELL, Warden,
Respondent.

19

/
20
21

Petitioner Oscar Gates, a California state prisoner sentenced to death, seeks a writ of

22

habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. Section 2254. The parties have filed merits briefing on certain

23

stipulated claims that they agree can be considered without the input of petitioner, who has

24

previously been adjudicated incompetent. In addition, petitioner has filed two motions to

25

expand the record (Dkt Nos. 667 and 698). For the following reasons, all of petitioner’s claims

26

at issue on this motion are DENIED. In addition, petitioner’s motions to expand the record are

27

DENIED.

28

1

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

2

On December 10, 1979, Maurice Stevenson and his uncle, Lonnie Stevenson, were

appeared, holding a gun with the hammer cocked. Petitioner herded Maurice and Lonnie to the

5

side of the house and ordered them to put their hands on the wall, empty their pockets, and

6

remove their jewelry. After Maurice and Lonnie complied with petitioner's directives,

7

petitioner frisked them and asked Maurice as to the whereabouts of Maurice's father, James

8

Stevenson. Maurice replied that he did not know and petitioner told them that he was going to

9

kill them. Petitioner first shot Lonnie, who yelled for his father and started running toward the

10

back of the house, then shot Maurice, picked up the money and some of the jewelry, and fled.

11
For the Northern District of California

waxing his car in front of his grandfather's house in Oakland at about 3:30p.m. Petitioner

4

United States District Court

3

Lonnie died but Maurice survived. Some time after the shooting, petitioner called Jimmy

12

Stevenson, Maurice's grandfather, and said that he had killed Lonnie and shot Maurice, that he

13

was going to Los Angeles to kill members of another family, and that when he returned he

14

would finish killing off the Stevenson family. On December 29, 1979, petitioner was arrested

15

in Vallejo, and the gun later determined to be the one that killed Lonnie Stevenson was found

16

on

17

him. See People v. Gates, 43 Cal.3d 1168, 1176-78 (1987).

18

On January 4, 1980, an indictment was filed in Alameda County. It charged petitioner

19

with murder (Cal. Penal Code § 187(a)), accompanied by the robbery-murder special

20

circumstance (§ 190.2 (a)(17)(A)), two counts of robbery (§ 211), assault with a deadly weapon

21

(§ 245(a)), possession of a firearm by an ex-felon (§ 12021), and escape (§ 4532(b)), among

22

other things. Petitioner pled not guilty to all charges. The trial began on March 16, 1981.

23

At trial, petitioner asserted a claim-of-right defense. He testified about a so-called

24

“Stevenson family forgery ring,” purportedly headed by James Stevenson and Donald “Duck”

25

Taylor, and of which, Lonnie and Maurice Stevenson, Melvin Hines and petitioner were all

26

members. A dispute arose when petitioner did not receive his “big cut” of $25,000 allegedly

27

promised to him.

28

In September 1979, a heated argument between petitioner and other members
2

1

of the forgery ring led to petitioner being fired upon by Maurice and James Stevenson, which

2

resulted in a gunshot wound to petitioner's leg. Thereafter, petitioner learned through

3

intermediaries that he would have to give up his claim to the money or he would be shot. On

4

December 10, 1979, petitioner allegedly spoke with Lonnie Stevenson by phone and made

5

arrangements to pick up the money at Jimmy Stevenson's house at about 3:00p.m. Petitioner

6

went to Jimmy Stevenson's house as had been arranged. Petitioner saw

7

Maurice and Lonnie outside waxing a car. Petitioner allegedly told Maurice and Lonnie that he

8

was there to pick up his money and did not want any trouble, but that he had a gun and could

9

take care of himself. As the three men made their way around the side of the house, petitioner's
suspicion was allegedly aroused by some of Maurice and Lonnie's actions, so he patted them

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

down for weapons. After finding none, the three men continued toward the back of the house

12

when petitioner saw Jimmy Stevenson holding a gun. Gunfire erupted. Lonnie and Maurice

13

were shot, and petitioner fled. On May 6, 1981, the jury convicted petitioner of all charges and

14

found the special circumstance allegation to be true.

15

At the penalty phase, the prosecution presented, as evidence in aggravation, evidence of

16

petitioner's convictions for robbery and for two assaults in connection with a 1978 robbery of a

17

McDonald's restaurant, a 1973 conviction for rape, and a 1973 conviction for kidnapping. The

18

prosecution also presented evidence that petitioner was involved in a 1978 assault and robbery

19

of two women at a Los Angeles mortuary, which had resulted in the death of one of the women.

20

(Petitioner was later convicted of the Los Angeles mortuary crimes in a separate trial.)

21

The case in mitigation consisted of testimony by several of petitioner's family members,

22

several apartment neighbors, and a clinical psychologist. Petitioner's family members described

23

the racially-segregated environment in which petitioner grew up in Belzoni, Mississippi. They

24

testified that petitioner was never in any trouble until an incident at a Western Auto Store when

25

he was approximately 14 to 16 years old; the incident, which apparently involved petitioner, an

26

African-American, striking a white woman who had struck him first, resulted in petitioner

27

spending six months in jail and becoming a target of police harassment and suspicion for any

28

problem that arose thereafter. Petitioner's mother also testified that she visited petitioner in
3

1

California in 1973 at a jail hospital after he had been beaten by the police. Petitioner's

2

neighbors described petitioner as a friendly, sweet, considerate, good-hearted, good-natured

3

person who never got angry and got along well with people. Dr. Paul Berg, a clinical

4

psychologist, testified that petitioner was “an unusually well-adjusted prisoner” and most likely

5

would not present a problem in prison. See Gates, 43 Ca1.3d at 1193-97. On May 28, 1981, the

6

jury returned with a verdict of death for petitioner.

7

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

8

The California Supreme Court affirmed petitioner's conviction and sentence on direct

9

appeal on October 15, 1987. People v. Gates, 43 Ca1.3d 1168 (1987). On May 23, 1988, the
United States Supreme Court denied a petition for certiorari. Gates v. California, 486 U.S.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

1027 (1988).

12

Subsequent state and federal habeas proceedings ensued, with a focus on, inter alia,

13

petitioner’s competency.1 After much litigation, this matter was stayed in 2004 following an

14

adjudication of petitioner’s mental incompetency, as required by Rohan ex. rel. Gates v.

15

Woodford ("Gates"), 334 F.3d 803 (9th Cir. 2003).2 At that time, attorneys for petitioner and

16

respondent agreed that petitioner was then incompetent to assist counsel. On January 8, 2013,

17

the Supreme Court decided Ryan v. Gonzales, abrogating Gates and holding that an

18

incompetent capital prisoner has no right to an indefinite stay of habeas proceedings. The

19

Supreme Court further held that while the decision to grant a temporary stay is within the

20

discretion of the district court, an indefinite stay is inappropriate if there is no reasonable hope

21

the petitioner will regain competence in the foreseeable future. Ryan, 133 S. Ct. 696, 706-709.
Pursuant to Ryan, this Court lifted the stay. The parties were referred to settlement

22
23

proceedings with Magistrate Judge Beeler. In addition, the Court ordered proceedings on the

24

merits of petitioner’s federal habeas proceedings to re-commence. Recognizing that petitioner’s

25
26
27
28

1

For a detailed description of the state habeas proceedings, see Order Re Motion For Summary
Judgment on Claim 1 and 1292(b) Certification, filed August 23, 2001.
2

Petitioner was also adjudicated to be mentally incompetent in 1994, as part of the proceedings in this
habeas matter, and in 1973, in a prior state criminal matter.

4

1

competency remains an issue, the Court ordered the parties to brief the merits of certain

2

stipulated claims that did not need the input of petitioner to be addressed. Those stipulated

3

claims are the subject of this order.

4
5

LEGAL STANDARDS
HABEAS REVIEW

1.

6

The habeas statute authorizes this Court to review a state court criminal conviction “on

7

the ground that [the petitioner] is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties

8

of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a).3 The purpose of the writ of habeas corpus is to

9

“protect[] individuals from unconstitutional convictions and . . . to guarantee the integrity of the
criminal process by assuring that trials are fundamentally fair.” O'Neal v. McAninch, 513 U.S.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

432, 441 (1995); see also Brecht v. Abrahmson, 507 U.S. 619, 632-33 (1993). Because federal

12

habeas review delays finality and burdens state-federal relations, habeas doctrines must balance

13

the protection from unlawful custody the writ offers against the “presumption of finality and

14

legality” that attaches to a state-court conviction after direct review. See Brecht, 507 U.S. at

15

635-38; McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467, 490-91 (1991). Accordingly, a federal habeas court

16

must in most cases presume that state court findings of fact are correct. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).

17

In contrast, purely legal questions and mixed questions of law and fact are reviewed de novo.

18

See Swan v. Peterson, 6 F.3d 1373, 1379 (9th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 985 (1994). In

19

such circumstances, and when the state court has made no factual findings regarding the claim

20

at issue, petitioner bears the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, the facts

21

necessary to support his claims. See, e.g., Garlotte v. Fordice, 515 U.S. 39, 46-47 (1995).
Even if a petitioner meets the requirements of Section 2254(d), habeas relief is

22
23

warranted only if the constitutional error at issue had a substantial and injurious effect or

24

influence in determining the jury’s verdict. Brecht, 507 U.S. at 638. Under this standard,

25

petitioners “may obtain plenary review of their constitutional claims, but they are not entitled to

26

habeas relief based on trial error unless they can establish that it resulted in ‘actual prejudice.’”

27
28

3

This case predates the effective date of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996
(“AEDPA”), and thus AEDPA’s standard of review does not apply.

5

1

Brecht, 507 U.S. at 637 (citing United States v. Lane, 474 U.S. 438, 439 (1986)).

2

2.

TEAGUE DOCTRINE

3

Teague prevents a federal court from granting habeas relief to a state prisoner based on

4

a constitutional rule of criminal procedure announced after his conviction and sentence became

5

final. Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 310–16 (1989); see also Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302,

6

313–14 (1989) (the non-retroactivity principle is applicable in a capital sentencing context). It

7

prohibits federal courts from either creating or applying new rules on collateral review. See

8

Butler v. McKellar, 494 U.S. 407, 412 (1990).
Teague instructs that “[a] case announces a new rule if the result was not dictated by

9

precedent existing at the time the defendant's conviction became final.” 489 U.S. at 301. Put

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

differently, a decision sets forth a new rule when it “breaks new ground or imposes a new

12

obligation on the States or the Federal Government.” Butler, 494 U.S. at 412. The new rule

13

does not, however, foreclose the specific application of a previously established rule. The

14

Supreme Court has explained that “if the rule in question is one which of necessity requires a

15

case-by-case examination of the evidence, then we can tolerate a number of specific

16

applications without saying that those applications themselves create a new rule.” Williams, 529

17

U.S. at 383 (quoting Wright v. West, 505 U.S. 277, 308–09 (1992)).4

18
19

ANALYSIS
1.

CLAIM 10

20

In Claim 10, petitioner maintains that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury

21

that the charged robbery-murder special circumstance required a specific intent to kill under

22

Carlos v. Superior Court, 35 Cal. 3d 131, 153-154 (1983). According to petitioner, this failure

23

violated petitioner’s constitutional rights and mandates reversal of his death sentence.

24

Under California law, “intent to kill is not an element of the felony-murder special

25
26
27
28

4

In an earlier order, the Court addressed the application of Teague to several of the claims at issue in
this Order. See Order Denying in Part and Granting in Part Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment Based
on Affirmative Defenses (filed August 23, 2001) (hereinafter “Teague Order”).

6

1

circumstance when the defendant is the actual killer.”5 James v. Borg, 24 F.3d 20, 25 (9th Cir.

2

1994). “Intent to kill was an element of felony-murder special circumstance between 1983 and

3

1987, however.” Ibid. (citing Carlos v. Superior Court, 35 Cal. 3d 131, 153-154 (1983),

4

overruled by People v. Anderson, 43 Cal. 3d 1104, 1147 (1987)). Prior to the Anderson

5

decision overturning Carlos, however, the California Supreme Court had determined that

6

Carlos’s holding that intent to kill was an element of felony-murder special circumstance

7

applied retroactively. People v. Garcia, 36 Cal. 3d 539, 549 (1984). Because of that decision,

8

“confusion arose in the courts over whether Carlos or Anderson controlled.” James, 24 F.3d at

9

25. The issue was resolved by People v. Poggi, 45 Cal. 3d 306, 326-327 (1988), where the
California Supreme Court held that the Carlos rule applies only when the felony-murder special

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

circumstance is alleged to have occurred after Carlos and before Anderson.6
Petitioner’s robbery and murder of Lonnie Stevenson occurred on December 10, 1979

12
13

and he was tried for his crimes in 1981, well before the Carlos decision. The Ninth Circuit has

14

squarely addressed this issue, and confirmed that in cases like petitioner’s, where the charged

15

felony-murder special circumstance occurred before Carlos, Anderson governs, and “intent to

16

kill was not an element of the felony-murder special circumstance.” James, 24 F.3d at 26.

17

Accordingly, petitioner was not entitled to an instruction that the charged robbery-murder

18

special circumstance required a specific intent to kill.
In a separate decision, the Ninth Circuit addressed the issue of whether changing

19
20

California law regarding specific intent for felony-murder special circumstances, specifically

21

those decisions such as Poggi that mandated retroactive application of the Anderson decision

22

and limited the requirement of a specific intent element to the time period of 1983-1987,

23

violated a petitioner’s due process rights under the ex post facto clause. Hunt v. Vasquez, 899

24

F.2d 878, 881 (9th Cir. 1990) (citing Bouie v. City of Columbia, 378 U.S. 347 (1964)).

25
26
27
28

5

This includes cases such as petitioner’s, where the felony is a robbery. Cal. Penal Code § 190.2 (a).

6

Poggi also held that an instruction regarding specific intent was only required “when there was
evidence from which the jury could find that the defendant was an accomplice rather than the actual killer.” 45
Cal. 3d at 326.

7

1

Petitioner here also makes a Bouie argument, but his argument is without merit under the

2

controlling authority of Hunt. The Ninth Circuit dismissed petitioner Hunt’s argument, holding

3

that “[t]he defect in his argument is that the current law is identical to the law that was in effect

4

at the time of his offense. There is no ex post facto problem. [Petitioner] was on notice as to the

5

punishment he could receive. No ex post facto change in the law occurred.” 899 F. 2d at 881.

6

So too here. At the time of petitioner’s crimes and trial, California law did not require specific

7

intent for felony-murder special circumstances. or is specific intent currently required. Thus,

8

petitioner can show no error under Bouie.

9

Under both California and federal law, a specific intent to kill was not an element of the
charged robbery-murder special circumstance at the time of petitioner’s trial, and thus the trial

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

court was under no obligation to give an instruction regarding specific intent. Based on the

12

controlling authority of James and Hunt, petitioner’s claim must be denied.

13

2.

14

CLAIM 11
In Claim 11, petitioner maintains that the trial court committed constitutional error by

15

failing to instruct the jury that, in order to find true the robbery–murder special circumstance, it

16

was required to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the murder was committed to advance the

17

commission of the robbery.

18

While in this pre-AEDPA case the Court must consider petitioner’s claim de novo, the

19

California Supreme Court’s resolution of this issue - - which concerns an issue of California law

20

- - is nonetheless instructive. The California Supreme Court addressed this claim on the merits

21

as follows:

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2.

Green Instruction

The court gave the 1980 revision of CALJIC No. 8.81.17, which
incorporates the holding of People v. Green, supra, 27 Cal. 3d 1, 59-62 [parallel
citations omitted], which requires the jury to find, in a robbery-murder special
circumstance, the killing was committed in order to carry out or advance the
commission of the robbery or to facilitate the escape therefrom or to avoid
detection thereof. Defendant contends that the court erroneously gave the
instruction by substituting the word “or” for “and” as italicized in the following
passage: “Now, to find that the special circumstance, which is murder in the
commission of a robbery, is true, it must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt:
(1) That the murder was committed while the defendant was engaged in the
commission or attempted commission of a robbery, or that the murder was
8

1
2

committed during the immediate flight after the commission of a robbery, or that
the murder was committed in order to carry out or advance the commission of
the crime of robbery or to facilitate the escape therefrom or to avoid detection. . .
.”

3
4
5
6
7

If the judge misspoke, as the reporter’s transcript appears to indicate, his
mistake was cured by the further instruction and illustrations he gave on this
issue. We believe the jury could not reasonably have been misled when all
instructions and illustrations on this subject are considered.
Gates, 43 Cal. 3d at 1193.
To obtain federal collateral relief for errors in the jury charge, a petitioner must show

8

that the ailing instruction by itself so infected the entire trial that the resulting conviction

9

violates due process. See Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 72 (1991); Cupp v. Naughten, 414
U.S. 141, 147 (1973); see also Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U.S. 637, 643 (1974) (“[I]t must

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

be established not merely that the instruction is undesirable, erroneous or even universally

12

condemned, but that it violated some [constitutional right].”) The instruction may not be judged

13

in artificial isolation, but must be considered in the context of the instructions as a whole and

14

the trial record. See Estelle, 502 U.S. at 72. In other words, a court must evaluate jury

15

instructions in the context of the overall charge to the jury as a component of the entire trial

16

process. United States v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152, 169 (1982) (citing Henderson v. Kibbe, 431 U.S.

17

145, 154 (1977)); Prantil v. California, 843 F.2d 314, 317 (9th Cir.1988); see, e.g., Middleton v.

18

McNeil, 541 U.S. 433, 434-35 (2004) (per curiam) (no reasonable likelihood that jury misled by

19

single contrary instruction on imperfect self-defense defining “imminent peril” where three

20

other instructions correctly stated the law). If an error is found, a court also must determine that

21

the error had a substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury's verdict, see

22

Brecht, 507 U.S. at 637, before granting relief in habeas proceedings. See Calderon v.

23

Coleman, 525 U.S. 141, 146-47 (1998).

24

The Court assumes, as did the California Supreme Court, that the instruction read was in

25

error under California law. Gates, 43 Cal. 3d at 1193. Even assuming error, however,

26

petitioner cannot demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the instructions of the

27

trial court, taken in their entirety, would have allowed the jury to find true the special

28

circumstance if it found that the robbery was merely incidental to the murder. See, e.g.,
9

1

Donnelly , 416 U.S. at 643 (holding that even a clearly erroneous instruction does not

2

necessarily violate a defendant’s constitutional rights). In this case, while the trial court

3

misread the instruction by using the disjunctive “or”, instead of the conjunctive “and”, a review

4

of the record confirms that the trial court gave numerous other instructions which served to

5

properly instruct the jury as to the requirement under Green. For example, in explaining the

6

charged special circumstance, the trial court informed the jurors more than once that they were

7

required to find “that the murder was committed while the defendant was engaged in the

8

commission of a robbery” (RT 957-958). In addition, the trial court instructed the jury that “the

9

special circumstance referred to in my instructions is not established if the robbery or attempted

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

robbery was merely incidental to the commission of the murder” (RT 957-958).
This order finds after review of the record and applicable law that petitioner cannot

12

demonstrate that even with the trial court’s error, the instructions of the trial court, taken in their

13

entirety, would have allowed the jury to find true the special circumstance if it found that the

14

robbery was merely incidental to the murder. As the Supreme Court has confirmed, we must

15

evaluate the jury instructions in the context of the overall charge to the jury as a component of

16

the entire trial process. See Frady, 456 U.S. at 169. While the trial court did make an error by

17

using “or” instead of “and”, any error was corrected by the additional instructions regarding

18

how the jury was required to evaluate the charged special circumstance. Indeed, the trial court

19

specified that the robbery could not be incidental to the murder, and gave numerous relevant

20

examples to clarify the proper standard. RT 960-962; see, e.g., Middleton 541 U.S. at 434-35

21

(finding no reasonable likelihood that a jury was misled by a single contrary instruction where

22

other instructions correctly stated the law). Accordingly, any error in the reading of CALJIC

23

No. 8.81.17 was cured by the remainder of the trial court’s instructions and statements.

24

Moreover, petitioner is unable to establish that any error was prejudicial to him under

25

Brecht, 507 U.S. at 637. There was ample evidence at trial for a reasonable jury to conclude

26

beyond a reasonable doubt that the murder was committed to advance the commission of the

27

robbery. For example, the evidence established that petitioner had demanded money from the

28

victims earlier on the day of the shooting, and he later arrived at the victims’ home with a
10

1

loaded gun. He herded Maurice and Lonnie to the side of the house and ordered them to put

2

their hands on the wall, empty their pockets, and remove their jewelry. Soon after, petitioner

3

threatened to kill Maurice and Lonnie; petitioner first shot Lonnie, who yelled for his father and

4

started running toward the back of the house, then shot Maurice, picked up the money and some

5

of the jewelry, and fled. As such, the instructional error alleged here did not have a substantial

6

and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict. Brecht, 507 U.S. at 638.

7

This claim must be denied.

8

3.

CLAIM 17

9

In Claim 17, petitioner maintains generally that California’s death penalty statute fails to
adequately narrow the class of death-eligible defendants, in violation of the Fifth, Eighth and

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Fourteenth Amendments. He also specifically argues that the statute does not appropriately

12

narrow defendants charged under felony-murder provisions, as he was.

13

The Supreme Court has held that states that choose to authorize capital punishment must

14

“define the crimes for which death may be the sentence is a way that obviates ‘standardless

15

[sentencing] discretion.’” Godfrey v. Georgia, 446 U.S. 420, 428 (1980). To find a defendant

16

eligible for the death penalty, a jury must both convict the defendant of murder and find true at

17

least one special circumstance.7 Tuilaepa v. California, 512 U.S. 967, 971-972 (1994)

18

(upholding California’s death penalty statute against multiple challenges). The special

19

circumstance may be contained “in the definition of the crime or in a separate sentencing factor

20

or in both.” Id. at 972. Furthermore, in order to pass constitutional muster, the circumstance

21

“may not apply to every defendant convicted of a murder; it must apply only to a subclass of

22

defendants convicted of murder.” Ibid.; see also, Arave v. Creech, 507 U.S. 463, 474 (1993).

23

In addition, the circumstance “may not be unconstitutionally vague.” Ibid.; see also, Godfrey v.

24

Georgia, 446 U.S. 420, 428 (1980).

25
26
27
28

7

In other jurisdictions, what California defines as “special circumstances” are referred to as
“aggravating circumstances.” These special circumstances are considered at the guilt phase. Cal. Penal Code §
§ 190.1, 190.2, 190.4. At the separate penalty phase, the jury considers whether a death-eligible defendant
should actually be sentenced to death, by taking into account numerous factors. Cal. Penal Code § 190.3. If the
jury finds that “the aggravating circumstances outweigh the mitigating circumstances”, it may impose the death
penalty. Ibid.; see also, Tuilaepa, 512 U.S. at 969.

11

1

The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld California’s death penalty statute. See, e.g.,

2

Tuilaepa, 512 U.S. at 977-980; Boyde v. California, 494 U.S. 370 (1990); California v. Brown,

3

479 U.S. 538 (1987). In addition, the Ninth Circuit has repeatedly rejected narrowing

4

challenges such as petitioner’s. In Mayfield, for example, the Ninth Circuit considered and

5

rejected an argument that California’s statute was unconstitutional because it did not adequately

6

narrow the class of persons eligible for the death penalty. Mayfield v. Woodford, 270 F. 3d 915,

7

924 (9th Cir. 2001). The Court held that California law served to constitutionally “narrow the

8

class of persons eligible for the death penalty at both the guilt and penalty phases.” Ibid.

9

Specifically, at the guilt phase, a “defendant is eligible for the death penalty [] only if . . ., the
jury finds him guilty of first degree murder and finds to be true a statutorily defined special

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

circumstance.” Ibid. (citing Jurek v. Texas, 428 U.S. 262, 270-271 (1976). And “[a]t the

12

penalty phase, the class of defendants eligible for death is again narrowed by the jury’s

13

application of a series of statutorily enumerated aggravating or mitigating factors.” Mayfield,

14

270 F. 3d at 924.; see also Blystone v. Pennsylvania, 494 U.S. 299, 207 (1990). The Court

15

concluded that “[a] reasonable jurist could not debate, therefore, that the [] California statute,

16

which narrowed the class of death-eligible defendants at both the guilt and penalty phases, was

17

constitutional.” Mayfield, 270 F. 3d at 924.

18

In Karis, the Ninth Circuit again rejected the argument “that the [death penalty] scheme

19

does not adequately narrow the class of person eligible for the death penalty.” Karis v.

20

Calderon, 283 F.3d 1117, 1141 n. 11 (9th Cir. 2002). To the contrary, “[t]he special

21

circumstances in California apply to a subclass of defendants convicted of murder and are not

22

unconstitutionally vague.” Id. Thus, “California has identified a subclass of defendants

23

deserving of death and by doing so, it has ‘narrowed in a meaningful way the category of

24

defendants upon whom capital punishment may be imposed.’” Id. (citing Arave, 507 U.S. at

25

476).

26

Given the controlling caselaw, petitioner’s general narrowing claim is without merit.

27

Petitioner also cannot demonstrate that the portion of his claim specifically regarding felony-

28

murder in his case is meritorious. Petitioner argues that the robbery of Lonnie Stevenson was
12

1

used: (1) as the basis for petitioner’s felony-murder conviction; (2) to find true the charged

2

special circumstance of robbery-murder, and; (3) as part of the “circumstances” that could be

3

considered aggravating under California Penal Code Section 190.3. According to petitioner,

4

this “double counting” of the robbery at the guilt and penalty phases is unconstitutional because

5

it does not serve to narrow the class of death-eligible defendants.8

6

While there is no Supreme Court law squarely addressing California’s “double

7

counting”, the Supreme Court has considered a similar issue in Louisiana’s death penalty

8

statute. In Lowenfield v. Phelps, the Court addressed whether or not the fact that Louisiana’s

9

capital punishment statute allowed an element of the capital crime for which petitioner was
convicted to also serve as the sole aggravating factor at sentencing rendered the statute

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

unconstitutional. 484 U.S. 231 (1988). The petitioner argued that this double-counting was

12

impermissible because it did not serve to further narrow the class of death-eligible defendants at

13

the penalty phase. Id. at 241.

14

The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that the constitutionally-required “‘narrowing

15

function’ was performed by the jury at the guilt phase when it found defendant guilty of three

16

counts of murder” along with the special circumstance that “the offender has a specific intent to

17

kill or to inflict great bodily harm upon more than one person.” Id. at 246 (citations omitted).

18

Furthermore, “the fact that the sentencing jury is also required to find the existence of an

19

aggravating circumstance in addition is no part of the constitutionally required narrowing

20

process, and so the fact that the aggravating circumstance duplicated one of the elements of the

21

crime does not make this sentence constitutionally infirm.” Ibid. Accordingly, the Court held,

22

the “Louisiana scheme narrows the class of death-eligible murders and then at the sentencing

23

phase allows for consideration of mitigating circumstances and the exercise of discretion. The

24

Constitution requires no more.” Ibid.
Lowenfield is controlling law here. The fact that petitioner’s felony of robbery was

25
26

“counted” at both the guilt and penalty phases of his trial does not render his death sentence

27
28

8

The Court has already found in its Teague Order that this portion of petitioner’s claim is Teaguebarred (Teague Order 33-34).

13

eligible defendants at the guilt phase. In petitioner’s particular case, the special circumstance of

3

robbery-murder, which was found true by the jury, provided constitutionally-required

4

narrowing. The fact that the robbery was later introduced in the penalty phase as a potential

5

aggravating circumstance “does not make this sentence constitutionally infirm.” Lowenfield,

6

484 U.S. at 246. Additionally, the Supreme Court has held that a “sentencer should consider

7

the circumstances of the crime in deciding whether to impose the death penalty.” Tuilaepa, 512

8

U.S. at 976. As such, it was “a constitutionally indispensible part of the process of inflicting

9

the penalty of death,” Tuilaepa, 512 U.S. at 976 (citations omitted), for the jury to consider the

10

circumstances of petitioner’s crimes, including the robbery, during the penalty phase of his trial.

11
For the Northern District of California

unconstitutional. As discussed California’s statute appropriately narrows the class of death-

2

United States District Court

1

For the above reasons, this claim is denied on the merits in its entirely.

12

For this claim, petitioner has also moved expand the record to include, inter alia,

13

documents and testimony from Ashmus v. Martel, C 93-594 TEH (N.D. Cal.) and Webster v.

14

Ornoski, CV-93-00306 LKK-DAD (E.D. Cal.), cases which address similar claims regarding

15

the constitutionality of California’s capital punishment system. Petitioner relies on these

16

documents and testimony to support his argument that California's death penalty statute fails to

17

adequately narrow the class of death-eligible defendants. Neither the Ashmus Court nor the

18

Webster Court have issued a decision on the merits, however, and thus neither matter currently

19

calls into question the controlling caselaw cited supra. Petitioner has not established that he is

20

entitled to have these materials, developed in evidentiary hearings in different pending cases,

21

considered by the Court. Accordingly, this Court DENIES petitioner’s motions to expand the

22

record (Dkt. Nos. 667 and 698).9

23

4.

CLAIM 19

24
25

In Claim 19, petitioner alleges that CALJIC No. 8.84.2, in conjunction with the verdict
forms and other instructions, misled the jury and violated petitioner’s constitutional rights under

26
27
28

9

Petitioner also invites the Court to defer ruling on this claim until decisions have been rendered in
Ashmus and/or Webster. Because the Court finds that this claim is currently suitable for disposition on the
merits, it declines petitioner’s invitation to defer ruling.

14

1

the Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. This claim was previously held by the Court to

2

be Teague-barred (Teague Order 39-40). Petitioner invites the Court to reconsider that holding;

3

the Court declines and finds that this claim should also be denied on the merits.

4

As the Court has previously found, the gravamen of Claim 19 is that the factors

5

mentioned above (CALJIC No. 8.84.2, in conjunction with the verdict forms and other

6

instructions) caused the jurors to erroneously believe that their determination of the appropriate

7

penalty for petitioner was to be based solely on whether the aggravating circumstances

8

outweighed the mitigating circumstances, and that they did not have discretion to determine

9

whether death was the appropriate penalty in light of the evidence. Petitioner’s claim is without

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

merit under Boyde, 494 U.S. 376-77, and must be denied.
In Boyde, the Supreme Court squarely addressed and upheld CALJIC No. 8.84.2, which

12

stated: “If you conclude that the aggravating circumstances outweigh the mitigating

13

circumstances, you shall impose a sentence of death. However, if you determine that the

14

mitigating circumstances outweigh the aggravating circumstances, you shall impose a sentence

15

of confinement in the state prison for life without the possibility of parole.” Ibid. The Court

16

rejected the argument that the mandatory “shall” language in CALJIC No. 8.84.2 prevented the

17

jury from making an individual assessment of the appropriateness of the death penalty. Ibid.

18

The Court explained:

19
20
21
22

Petitioner suggests that the jury must have the freedom to decline to
impose the death penalty even if the jury decided that the aggravating
circumstances “outweigh” the mitigating circumstances. But there is no such
constitutional requirement of unfettered sentencing discretion in the jury, and
States are free to structure and shape consideration of mitigating evidence “in an
effort to achieve a more rational and equitable administration of the death
penalty.” Petitioner’s claim that the “shall impose” language of CALJIC 8.84.2
unconstitutionally prevents “individualized assessment” is without merit.

23
Id. at 377.
24
In petitioner’s case, the trial court substituted “may” for “shall” in its reading of
25
CALJIC 8.84.2, but the mandatory language at issue in Boyde was utilized in the verdict forms
26
and in the supplemental instructions to the jury. According to petitioner, these instructions and
27
verdict forms, taken together, were unconstitutional because they did not inform the jury that
28
15

1

regardless of whether evidence in aggravation outweighed that in mitigation, the jury retained

2

the discretion to exercise leniency. Thus, despite the factual variance in the reading of CALJIC

3

8.84.2, petitioner’s argument is effectively the same as the argument in Boyde and is without

4

merit for the same reasons. Despite what petitioner alleges, “there is no such constitutional

5

requirement of unfettered sentencing discretion in the jury.” Boyde, 494 U.S. at 377. In

6

addition, there is no constitutional requirement that, as petitioner claims, the jury be instructed

7

that it need not impose the death penalty even if the aggravating circumstances outweigh the

8

mitigating factors. Ibid. Accordingly, petitioner’s argument is without merit and must be

9

denied.
5.

CLAIM 20

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

In Claim 20, petitioner maintains that California’s capital punishment system is

12

unconstitutional. Specifically, he maintains that California Penal Code Sections 190-190.9, and

13

related CALJIC instructions, are unconstitutional and deprived petitioner of his rights under the

14

Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.

15

The gravamen of petitioner’s argument is that death penalty law is unconstitutional

16

because it fails to narrow rationally the class of murderers eligible for the death sentence. This

17

claim is related to Claim 17, discussed supra, but includes different challenges to the California

18

death penalty statute. Petitioner here alleges that: (1) the statutory factors listed in Penal Code §

19

190.3, and in CALJIC No. 8.84.1 are unconstitutionally vague; (2) Penal Code §§ 190.1-190.3

20

permits unbridled prosecutorial discretion in charging and prosecuting capital crimes; (3)

21

California’s death penalty system fails to require that the jury be read instructions defining

22

aggravation and mitigation, or explain in any meaningful way how the jury was to arrive at its

23

decision; (4) the use of a unitary list of factors which fails to specify whether any particular

24

factor may be regarded as aggravating and mitigating is confusing and arbitrary; (5) the failure

25

to require jury unanimity, written jury findings in support of any death verdict, and utilization

26

of proof beyond a reasonable doubt standard for all penalty phase determinations, is

27

unconstitutional; and (6) the failure to contain a provision requiring comparative or inter-case

28

proportionality review renders the California system unconstitutional (Second Amended Pet. at
16

1

259-72).

2

The Court has already ruled that most portions of this claim are Teague-barred (Dkt. No.

3

507). Petitioner requests that we revisit this holding, which this order declines to do.

4

Furthermore, the Court finds that all portions of this claim are suitable for disposition on the

5

merits.

6

A.

7

As respondent correctly points out, California’s death penalty system has been

Vagueness Challenge

8

repeatedly upheld by reviewing courts, and petitioner has offered no compelling reason for this

9

Court to reject that caselaw and conclude that California's death penalty system is
unconstitutional. In Tuilaepa, the Court considered numerous vagueness challenges to

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

California’s death penalty statute, and held that none of the aspects of California’s death penalty

12

statute it considered, including those challenged by petitioner here, were void for vagueness.

13

512 U.S. at 976-979. As such, Tuilaepa effectively forecloses petitioner's arguments that the

14

statute is unconstitutionally vague.

15

B.

16

Petitioner's allegation that Sections 190-1-190.3 unconstitutionally allowed for

Prosecutorial Discretion

17

“unbridled” prosecutorial discretion to charge and prosecute capital murder is also without

18

merit. In Gregg v. Georgia, the United States Supreme Court rejected the argument that

19

prosecutorial “opportunities for discretionary action” render a death penalty statute

20

unconstitutional. 428 U.S. 153, 199 (1976). In considering a similar challenge to Washington's

21

death penalty system, the Ninth Circuit found that the argument that a “capital punishment

22

statute is unconstitutional because it vests unbridled discretion in the prosecutor to decide when

23

to seek the death penalty . . . has been explicitly rejected by the Supreme Court.” Campbell v.

24

Kincheloe, 829 F. 2d 1453, 1465 (9th Cir. 1987).

25

C.

26

Tuilaepa also effectively forecloses petitioner’s argument that the California death

Instructions to the Jury

27

penalty statute is unconstitutional because it neither requires instructions of aggravation and

28

mitigation for the jury, nor instructions regarding how the jury ought to arrive at its sentencing
17

1

decision. 512 U.S. at 979. The Tuilaepa Court considered and rejected the argument that the

2

jury must be instructed as to how to weigh the factors in order to come to a decision regarding

3

whether or not to impose the death penalty. 512 U.S. at 978-979. As the Court held, “[a]

4

capital sentencer need not be instructed how to weigh any particular fact in the capital

5

sentencing decision.” Tuilaepa, 512 U.S. at 979; see also, California v. Ramos, 463 U.S. 992,

6

1008 (1983) (finding that “[o]nce the jury finds that the defendant falls within the legislatively

7

defined category of person eligible for the death penalty . . . the jury then is free to consider a

8

myriad of factors to determine whether death is the appropriate punishment”). Accordingly,

9

this subclaim is without merit.
D.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

In Tuilaepa, the United States Supreme Court held that giving a penalty phase jury a

Unitary List of Factors

12

unitary list of sentencing factors that does not designate which factors are mitigating and which

13

are aggravating does not violate the Constitution. 512 U.S. at 978-979. Moreover, the Ninth

14

Circuit has found that California’s “death penalty statute’s failure to label aggravating and

15

mitigating factors is constitutional.” Williams v. Calderon, 52 F.3d 1465, 1484 (9th Cir. 1995).

16

(citations omitted). In light of this controlling authority, petitioner’s claim is without merit and

17

must be denied.

18

E.

19

Tuilaepa holds that there is no constitutional requirement for California's capital

20

sentencing statute to include the specific provisions petitioner identifies regarding jury findings.

21

512 U.S. at 971-973 (rejecting claim that California statute is constitutionally infirm because,

22

inter alia, the sentencing factors in Section 190.3 of the California Penal Code are open-ended

23

and the jury is not instructed to weigh the facts in deciding the appropriate penalty to be

24

imposed). In addition, written jury findings are not constitutionally required nor is there any

25

constitutional requirement that jury must find beyond a reasonable doubt that death is the

26

appropriate punishment. Williams, 52 F.3d at 1485.

Jury Findings

27

F.

28

Petitioner argues that his death sentence is constitutionally infirm because the California

Proportionality Review

18

1

statute includes no provision for proportionality review, that is a review of whether there was a

2

meaningful basis for distinguishing petitioner’s case from those cases where the death penalty

3

was not imposed, and whether imposing the death penalty in his case was a proportional

4

punishment in comparison to other California cases where the death penalty was not imposed.

5

This argument is without merit. The Ninth Circuit has repeatedly held that “there is no federal

6

constitutional requirement of inter-case proportionality analysis of death sentences.” Martinez-

7

Villareal v. Lewis, 80 F.3d 1301, 1309 (9th Cir. 1996) (citing Pulley v. Harris, 465 U.S. 37, 43,

8

50-51 (1984)); Allen v. Woodford, 395 F.3d 979, 1018-1019 (9th Cir. 2005) (holding that neither

9

due process, the Eighth Amendment nor equal protection mandate proportionality review).
G.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

In conjunction with this claim, as with other claims, petitioner has also filed motions to

Additional Materials

12

expand the record to include, inter alia, documents and testimony from Ashmus v. Martel, C 93-

13

594 TEH (N.D. Cal.) and Webster v. Ornoski, CV-93-00306 LKK-DAD (E.D. Cal.), cases

14

which address similar issues regarding the constitutionality of California’s capital punishment

15

system. Petitioner relies heavily on these documents and testimony to support his argument that

16

California's death penalty system is unconstitutional. Neither the Ashmus Court nor the Webster

17

Court have issued a decision on the merits, however, and thus neither matter currently calls into

18

question the controlling caselaw. Petitioner has not established that he is entitled to have these

19

materials, developed in evidentiary hearings in different pending cases, considered by the

20

Court. Accordingly, this order DENIES petitioner’s motion to expand the record (Docket Nos.

21

667 and 698).10

22

6.

CLAIM 23

23

In Claim 23 , petitioner maintains that the trial court erred in failing to sua sponte

24

instruct the jury against adversely considering petitioner's failure to testify at the penalty phase.

25

This claim may be quickly denied, because petitioner concedes that it is without merit under the

26
27
28

10

Petitioner also invites the Court to defer ruling on this claim until decisions have been rendered in
Ashmus and/or Webster. Because the Court finds that this claim is currently suitable for disposition on the
merits, it declines petitioner’s invitation to defer ruling.

19

1

facts of his case. Such an instruction is required when requested, Carter v. Kentucky, 450 U.S.

2

288, 300 (1981), but there was no such request at petitioner's trial, and there is no caselaw

3

establishing that such an instruction must be given sua sponte by the trial court. As such, as

4

petitioner does and must concede, this claim is without merit and must be denied.

5

7.

6

CLAIM 24
In Claim 24, petitioner maintains that the trial court erred in failing to sua sponte

7

instruct the jury as to the applicability or inapplicability of the guilt phase instructions to the

8

penalty phase. Specifically, petitioner argues that jury should have been instructed that: (1) the

9

standards for assessing witness credibility continued to apply at the penalty phase; and (2) the
jury should have been instructed that it was not prohibited from considering sentiment, mercy or

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

sympathy at the penalty phase.11 According to petitioner, this failure violated his Fifth, Eighth

12

and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

13

The Court has already found that this claim is Teague-barred in its entirety. In addition,

14

petitioner can cite to no caselaw that requires such instructions, and thus even if his claim was

15

not Teague-barred, he is not able to demonstrate that he is entitled to relief on the merits.

16

A trial court's refusal to give an instruction does not alone raise a ground cognizable in a

17

federal habeas corpus proceeding. See Dunckhurst, 859 F.2d at 114. Rather, to obtain federal

18

collateral relief for instructional error, a petitioner must show that the challenged instruction, or

19

lack of instruction, by itself so infected the entire trial that the resulting conviction violates due

20

process. See Estelle, 502 U.S. at 72; Cupp, 414 U.S. at 147; see also Donnelly, 416 U.S. at 643

21

(“[I]t must be established not merely that the instruction is undesirable, erroneous or even

22

universally condemned, but that it violated some [constitutional right].” ) Alleged instructional

23

error may not be judged in artificial isolation, but must be considered in the context of the

24

instructions as a whole and the trial record. See Estelle, 502 U.S. at 72. In other words, the

25

court must evaluate jury instructions in the context of the overall charge to the jury as a

26
27
28

11

Instructions regarding evaluation of witness credibility were read to the jury at the guilt phase, as
were instructions that cautioned the jury to avoid making a decision regarding guilt based on “sentiment,
conjecture, sympathy, passion, prejudice, or public opinion or public feeling” (RT 937-939).

20

1

component of the entire trial process. Frady, 456 U.S. (1982). If an error is found, the court

2

also must determine that the error had a substantial and injurious effect or influence in

3

determining the jury's verdict, see Brecht, 507 U.S. at 637, before granting relief in habeas

4

proceedings. See Calderon, 525 U.S. at 146-47.

5

Petitioner’s argument that it was error for the trial court to fail to tell the jury that it

6

could consider sentiment, mercy or sympathy at the penalty phase is without merit. As the

7

California Supreme Court reasonably found, “[t]he language of the no-sympathy instruction

8

specifically referred to deciding a defendant’s guilt or innocence and would not be necessarily

9

understood as applying to the penalty phase.” Gates, 43 Cal. 3d at 1209. More importantly, the
United States Supreme Court has held that even a penalty phase instruction specifically

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

informing jurors that they “must not be swayed by mere sentiment, conjecture, sympathy,

12

passion, prejudice, public opinion or public feeling” during the penalty phase of a capital trial

13

does not violate the Constitution. California v. Brown, 479 U.S. 538, 539-540 (1987).

14

Brown held that such an instruction would not interfere with the jury’s consideration of

15

mitigation evidence at the penalty phase. Id. at 541. Rather, the instruction “serves the useful

16

purpose of confining the jury’s imposition of the death sentence by cautioning it against

17

reliance on extraneous emotional factors, which, we think, would be far more likely to turn the

18

jury against a capital defendant than for him.” Id. at 543. In this case, petitioner alleges that the

19

mere purported carryover of the sympathy instruction from the guilt phase to the penalty phase

20

somehow led the jury to improperly consider the mitigation evidence. Because the Supreme

21

Court has held that even the reading of a similar instruction at the penalty phase itself did not

22

interfere with the jury’s consideration of mitigation evidence -- and indeed, could even assist a

23

capital defendant -- petitioner cannot demonstrate any constitutional error and this portion of his

24

claim must be denied.

25

Petitioner’s claim that the lack of a sua sponte instruction regarding the standards of

26

witness credibility at the penalty phase was constitutional error is also without merit. Petitioner

27

can cite to no state or federal case requiring that a jury be so reinstructed. Because “the witness

28

credibility instructions . . . were not specifically limited to the issue of guilt or innocence”,
21

1

Gates, 43 Cal. 3d at 1209, there is no indication that jurors disregarded them at the penalty

2

phase and improperly assessed the credibility of either the defense or prosecution witnesses. If

3

there is only a “possibility” that the jury misunderstood an instruction, there is no constitutional

4

violation. See Boyde, 494 U.S. at 380-381. Rather, a successful challenge to an instruction

5

must demonstrate a “reasonable likelihood” that the jury applied the instruction in an

6

impermissible way. Ibid. This petitioner cannot do and thus this portion of his claim must also

7

be denied.12

8

Even if petitioner had been able to demonstrate error, he would not be able to

in context of the instructions and trial record as a whole, had a substantial and injurious effect or

11
For the Northern District of California

demonstrate prejudice requiring reversal. Petitioner cannot show that these alleged errors, taken

10

United States District Court

9

influence in determining the jury's verdict. See Brecht, 507 U.S. at 637. There is no adequate

12

showing from petitioner that, had these instructions been read sua sponte, the jury would have

13

been more likely to have returned a sentence other than death. Thus, this claim is denied on the

14

merits.

15

8.

16

CLAIM 29
In Claim 29, petitioner challenges the review process of the California Supreme Court.

17

Specifically, petitioner alleges that the California Supreme Court failed to conduct a

18

constitutionally adequate review of petitioner's case, and institutionally does not conduct such

19

review in capital cases; in so doing, according to petitioner, the California Supreme Court

20

violated petitioner's rights under the Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.

21

As a threshold matter, petitioner has not demonstrated that these claims are even

22

cognizable on federal habeas review. To the extent petitioner is challenging the manner in

23

which the state court conducted a habeas review of his claims, such challenge fails for the

24

reason that petitioner cannot demonstrate there is any federal constitutional right to state habeas

25
26
27
28

12

Boyde also instructed that “[j]urors do not sit in solitary isolation booths parsing instructions for
subtle shades of meaning in the same way that lawyers might. Differences among them in interpretation of
instructions may be thrashed out in the deliberative process, with commonsense understanding of the
instructions in the light of all that has taken place at the trial likely to prevail over technical hairsplitting.” 494
U.S. at 380-381.

22

1

proceedings. As a result, a claim “alleging errors in the state post-conviction review process is

2

not addressable through habeas corpus proceedings.” Franzen v. Brinkman, 877 F.2d 26. 26 (9th

3

Cir. 1989).

4

Moreover, there is nothing in the California Supreme Court’s lengthy and exhaustive

5

opinion on direct review indicating that it did not meaningfully consider petitioner’s claims.

6

See People v. Gates, 43 Cal. 3d 1168-1214 (1987). Further, the Ninth Circuit has confirmed

7

that the California death penalty statute “ensures meaningful appellate review.” Williams, 52

8

F.3d at 1484.

political pressures on the California Supreme Court regarding decisions on death penalty cases,

11
For the Northern District of California

Nonetheless, petitioner maintains he was denied meaningful appellate review because of

10

United States District Court

9

and an “internal agenda of affirming capital cases.” Such argument is wholly lacking in

12

support.

13

There is a “general presumption that judges are unbiased and honest.” Ortiz v. Stewart,

14

149 F.3d 923, 938 (1998) (citing Withrow v. Larkin, 421 U.S. 35, 47 (1975)). Nothing in

15

petitioner’s argument suffices to overcome said general presumption. Petitioner identifies

16

nothing in the record of his own case that might suggest, let alone demonstrate, any bias, and

17

petitioner cannot deny that although in many instances capital sentences have been upheld, the

18

California Supreme Court also has issued decisions in which capital sentences have been

19

reversed.

20

Petitioner notes that, after the California Supreme Court heard oral argument on his

21

direct appeal, three justices were removed from office in a 1986 retention election where those

22

justices’ death penalty decisions were criticized. After those justices were replaced, petitioner's

23

direct appeal case was then re-argued in front of the California Supreme Court, and an opinion

24

issued affirming petitioner's conviction and sentence. Petitioner states that he is informed and

25

believes that the earlier court had reached a tentative decision in petitioner's favor. Petitioner

26

submits no evidence of this, and thus at this juncture, petitioner’s allegation is purely

27

speculative. Additionally, petitioner makes absolutely no showing that an internal memo or

28

other evidence of internal decision-making prepared by a court prior to its public decision on
23

1

the merits would be admissible in a habeas proceeding. Court employees are typically

2

precluded from discussing internal court deliberations, and the Court is concerned that this

3

requirement of confidentiality may have been betrayed.

4

Petitioner also argues that the justices rendering the final decision in his case found error

5

(but not prejudice requiring reversal) in several circumstances, but did not, according to

6

petitioner, engage in “meaningful” harmful-error analysis regarding these violations. He also

7

points out that there was a dissent in his case finding prejudicial error, in opposition to the

8

decision of the majority. The fact that reasonable jurists disagreed as to whether an error was

9

prejudicial does not, in any way, suggest that those jurists ruling against petitioner were
motivated by bias or improper agenda. Neither dissenting opinions, nor analyses that a non-

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

prevailing party finds unconvincing, support petitioner's argument that the California Supreme

12

Court's review is constitutionally inadequate. Petitioner cannot demonstrate that the justices

13

who actually rendered the decision in his case were in any way motivated by bias, political

14

pressure and improper agendas, and not by the merits of his particular case.

15

Petitioner has also filed motions to expand the record to include, inter alia, documents

16

and testimony from Ashmus v. Martel, C 93-594 TEH (N.D. Cal.) and Webster v. Ornoski, CV-

17

93-00306 LKK-DAD (E.D. Cal.), cases which address similar claims regarding the

18

constitutionality of the California Supreme Court's review of death penalty cases. Petitioner

19

relies on these documents and testimony to support his argument that the California Supreme

20

Court’s review system in capital cases is unconstitutional. Neither the Ashmus Court nor the

21

Webster Court have issued a decision on the merits, however, and thus neither case currently

22

calls into question the controlling caselaw cited supra. Petitioner has not established that he is

23

entitled to have these materials, developed in evidentiary hearings in different pending cases,

24

considered by the Court. Accordingly, this Court DENIES petitioner’s motion to expand the

25

record (Docket Nos. 667 and 698).13

26
27
28

13

Petitioner again invites the Court to defer ruling on this claim until decisions have been rendered in
Ashmus and/or Webster. Because this order finds that this claim is currently suitable for disposition on the
merits, it declines petitioner’s invitation to defer ruling.

24

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Claims 10, 11, 17, 19, 20, 23, 24 and 29 are DENIED on the
merits. In addition, petitioner’s motions to expand the record are DENIED.
Within 28 calendar days of the date of this Order, the parties are ORDERED to meet and
confer and submit a joint statement addressing the following:
(1) In accordance with the Court’s earlier orders, a joint plan for addressing the
continuing issue of petitioner’s competency;

8

(2) An update on the status of the settlement procedures with Magistrate Beeler. The

9

parties are again strongly urged to consider settlement as a reasonable resolution to this case,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

and both parties are expected to continue negotiating in good faith;
(3) Whether there are other claims in the petition that may be potentially resolved on the
merits without input from petitioner.

13
14
15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17
Dated: April

2

, 2014.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
25

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

26