Briseno v. Woodford et al

Filing 88

Conditional Writ of Habeas Corpus by Hon. Phyllis J. Hamilton.(pjhlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/10/2014)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

MICHAEL W. BRISENO,

8
9

Petitioner,
v.

CONDITIONAL WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS

JEANNE S. WOODFORD, Warden,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

No. C 04-1458 PJH

Respondent.
_______________________________/

12
13

In accordance with the order of remand and mandate issued by the Ninth Circuit on

14

September 12, 2014, respondent Jeanne S. Woodford moves for issuance of a conditional

15

writ of habeas corpus. Doc. no. 84. Petitioner Michael Briseno opposes respondent’s

16

motion and proposed writ. Doc. no. 87. Respondent did not file a reply brief, and the

17

matter is submitted on the papers. The court declines to adopt respondent’s proposed writ

18

and issues a conditional writ of habeas corpus as set forth below.

19

On petitioner’s appeal from the September 18, 2012 order denying petitioner’s

20

motion to enforce the Ninth Circuit’s December 20, 2010, memorandum decision and this

21

court’s subsequent January 14, 2011, order granting the petition for writ of habeas corpus,

22

the Ninth Circuit remanded this case “with instruction to grant a conditional writ of habeas

23

corpus unless the State, within ninety days, affords Briseno the opportunity to appeal his

24

conviction on the ground that his plea was involuntary, given that both the California

25

Superior Court and his trial counsel failed to inform Briseno of the statutory mandatory

26

minimum sentences; i.e., the writ shall be granted unless the State affords Briseno the

27

opportunity to apply for a certificate of probable cause to appeal that issue.” Doc. no. 83

28

(9th Cir. Sept. 12, 2014).

1
2
3
4
5
6

The parties dispute the language of the conditional writ mandated by the Ninth
Circuit. Respondent proposes that the court issue the following conditional writ:
The Court orders that respondent release petitioner from custody
on this judgment unless within 90 days (1) the Superior Court
affords petitioner the opportunity to apply for a certificate of
probable cause to appeal on the ground that his plea was
involuntary because he was not informed of the statutory
mandatory minimum sentences, or (2) the State initiates
proceedings to retry him.

Circuit’s ruling and would effectively give respondent relief that the court of appeals

9

declined to grant. First, he argues that respondent’s proposed language omits the portion

10

of the court of appeals’ ruling recognizing the basis for petitioner’s argument that his plea

11
For the Northern District of California

Doc. no. 84. Petitioner contends that respondent’s proposed writ contradicts the Ninth

8

United States District Court

7

was involuntary, namely, that “both the California Superior Court and his trial counsel

12

failed to inform Briseno of the statutory mandatory minimum sentences.” Doc. no. 87 at 5.

13

Second, petitioner disputes the proposed language that could be construed as specifying a

14

remedy for any possible future violations by the state courts of the new writ, in that it only

15

authorizes release from custody “on this judgment” and gives the state an opportunity to

16

retry petitioner as an alternative to affording him an opportunity to apply for a CPC. Doc.

17

no. 87 at 5. These objections are well taken and the court declines to adopt the disputed

18

language proposed by respondent.

19

Petitioner argues persuasively that respondent’s proposed writ allows for the

20

possibility that the state could initiate proceedings to retry him without affording him an

21

opportunity to apply for a CPC, because respondent proposes (1) affording the opportunity

22

to apply for a CPC, and (2) initiating proceedings to retry petitioner, as alternatives to each

23

other. This proposed condition is not entirely consistent with the mandate. Providing

24

petitioner an opportunity to apply for a CPC is a condition set by the terms of the mandate,

25

and the court may not fashion an alternative to that condition. That is, the mandate

26

provides for issuance of a conditional writ unless petitioner is afforded an opportunity to

27

apply for a CPC to appeal on the ground that his plea was involuntary. Rather than being

28

an alternative to the CPC condition, the state’s initiation of proceedings to retry petitioner is
2

1

an alternative remedy to release from custody, which is then conditioned on whether the

2

state affords petitioner an opportunity to apply for a CPC.

3

Petitioner recognizes that the court concluded earlier that the state could retry him to

Circuit rejected this remedy and ordered that the parties go back to state court to give

6

petitioner the opportunity to apply for a CPC to appeal. In the September 18, 2012 order,

7

the court cited a Ninth Circuit decision, which was subsequently amended and superseded

8

upon denial of rehearing, holding that the appropriate remedy for a Sixth Amendment

9

violation in the plea context is to return petitioner to the pre-plea stage of the proceedings.

10

Doc. no. 73 at 21 (citing Johnson v. Uribe, 682 F.3d 1238 (9th Cir.), amended by 700 F.3d

11
For the Northern District of California

remedy the alleged violation that was then before the court, but contends that the Ninth

5

United States District Court

4

413 (9th Cir. 2012), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 617 (2013)). The remedy discussion was not

12

amended by the superseding opinion in Johnson, and the Ninth Circuit held that to remedy

13

a Sixth Amendment violation of ineffective assistance of counsel occurring during the plea

14

negotiation stage, the petitioner must “be permitted to ‘bargain’ from the position he would

15

have been in,” had counsel rendered effective assistance, rather than simply re-sentencing

16

him. 700 F.3d at 427. The court reasoned that “[a]n adequate Sixth Amendment remedy

17

must neutralize the taint of a constitutional violation, while at the same time not grant a

18

windfall to the defendant or needlessly squander the considerable resources the State

19

properly invested in the criminal prosecution.” Id. at 425 (citing Lafler v. Cooper, 132 S. Ct.

20

1376, 1388 (2012) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted)).

21

In light of this controlling authority, and under the terms of the mandate, the court

22

determines that the appropriate remedy here is to require the state either to release

23

petitioner from custody or to initiate proceedings to retry him, unless the state court affords

24

petitioner an opportunity to apply for a certificate of probable cause within 90 days. See

25

United States v. Kellington, 217 F.3d 1084, 1092-93 (9th Cir. 2000) (“According to the rule

26

of mandate, although lower courts are obliged to execute the terms of a mandate, they are

27

free as to anything not foreclosed by the mandate, and, under certain circumstances, an

28

order issued after remand may deviate from the mandate if it is not counter to the spirit of
3

1

the circuit court's decision.”) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). See also

2

Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 775 (1987) (“this Court has repeatedly stated that federal

3

courts may delay the release of a successful habeas petitioner in order to provide the State

4

an opportunity to correct the constitutional violation found by the court.”).

5

In issuing a conditional writ that requires either release from custody or proceedings

6

to retry petitioner, unless the state affords an opportunity to apply for a CPC, the court

7

determines that the terms of the current mandate are substantially different than the

8

mandate issued pursuant to the December 2010 memorandum decision, which was issued

9

before Johnson was decided. The December 2010 memorandum expressly remanded the
petition “with instructions to grant the writ of habeas corpus on the issue reversed and

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

order the defendant released unless he is afforded an opportunity to appeal that

12

conviction within a reasonable time.” Doc. no. 46 at 6 (emphasis added). The current

13

mandate, issued by a different panel, gives no similar instruction that petitioner be

14

released. Rather, the current mandate instructs the court to issue a conditional writ unless

15

petitioner is afforded the opportunity to apply for a CPC. Doc. no. 83. The mandate is

16

silent on whether release and/or retrial is the appropriate remedy. Under the terms of the

17

mandate, and in light of Johnson, the court denies petitioner’s request to issue a conditional

18

writ under the instructions of the earlier mandate requiring release from custody.

19

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that respondent either (1) release petitioner

20

Michael W. Briseno from custody or (2) initiate proceedings to retry him, unless, within 90

21

days of the date of this conditional writ, the state affords petitioner the opportunity to apply

22

for a certificate of probable cause to appeal on the ground that his plea was involuntary,

23

given that both the California Superior Court and his trial counsel failed to inform petitioner

24

of the statutory mandatory minimum sentences.

25
26

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 10, 2014

______________________________
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge

27
28
4