Allen Williams v. John Soto

Filing 25

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on May 31, 2016. (ygrlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/31/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

ALLEN WILLIAMS,

Case No. 15-cv-04783-YGR

Petitioner,
8
v.

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR HABEAS
CORPUS RELIEF WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

9
10

JOHN SOTO,
Respondent.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
Now before the Court is petitioner Allen William’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

13
14

(Dkt. No. 1, “Pet.”) The government as respondent has answered (Dkt. No. 22, “Answer” and 22-

15

1, “Opp’n”), and petitioner has filed a traverse in reply (Dkt. No. 24, “Reply”). The petitioner

16

asserts a violation of his constitutional right to present a full defense due to the trial court’s

17

rejection of exculpatory evidence in violation of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Chambers v.

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Mississippi, and, in the alternative, petitioner argues his trial counsel rendered ineffective
assistance (“IAC”). Based thereon, petitioner seeks a writ of habeas corpus. For the reasons
stated below, the petition for such relief is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.
I.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On February 4, 2013, a jury found petitioner guilty of “willfully and unlawfully inflicting a

corporal injury resulting in a traumatic condition” upon his spouse (“Jane Doe” or “Doe”) and of
“committing an assault upon Jane Doe by means of force likely to cause great bodily injury.”

26
27
28

(Verdict Form, Opp’n Ex. 1 at 184, 186.) The information charged against petitioner also
included “numerous enhancement allegations,” and he was sentenced to a term of thirty-nine years

1

to life in prison. People v. Williams, No. A-138275, 2014 WL 1465884, at *1 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr.

2

15, 2014), review denied July 23, 2014. In an unpublished opinion addressing the petitioner’s

3

Chambers and IAC claims on direct appeal, the state Court of Appeal set forth the following

4

summary of facts:1

5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

On May 6, 2013, defendant's wife called 9-1-l for help. She told dispatchers she
had just been attacked by her husband and was hiding in her neighbor’s backyard.
This information was relayed to Officer David Manion who was dispatched to
their home in the City of San Mateo.
On his arrival, the door to the house was open but Manion at first saw no one. He
then observed defendant on the porch and when defendant started to enter the
home, Manion stopped and handcuffed him. Defendant told the officer, “I was
going to tum myself in” and “I was wrong, I admit it.” Manion noticed defendant
was bleeding from a cut on the back of his head. Defendant told Manion that his
wife had hit him with a cane. Manion searched inside the home and observed
blood on the wall, baseboard, carpet, and comforter of the master bedroom.
Outside the home, in a garbage can located on the sidewalk, he found a bloodied
wooden cane, a pillow, and a man’s undershirt.
When defendant’s wife approached, with a swollen face and in apparent pain, she
was rushed to the emergency room for medical attention. On the way to the
hospital, she told the paramedic that her husband hit her with a closed fist
multiple times. She had a broken jaw, missing teeth, oral lacerations, multiple
fractured ribs, and bruising around her eye, chest, and arm.
Defendant proffered testimony, which was excluded, that a few days after being
discharged from the hospital, the wife spoke with her friend, Anne Savage, and
told her “I don't like what I did, I put my husband in jail” and that she “started
it.”2

20

Id. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment of the jury (id. at 1), and the California Supreme

21

Court denied review of the appellate court’s decision on petitioner’s Chambers and IAC claims on

22
23
24
25

1

Footnote included below within the quoted excerpt of the Court of Appeal’s opinion
comes from the original, renumbered accordingly herein.
2

26
27
28

The proffer was based on a statement by Savage related in a police report. In arguing for
the admission of the statement defense counsel pointed out, “Ann [sic] Savage also attributes to
Jane Doe the statement that her husband had been drinking and he said something offensive, she
responded by grabbing a cane and striking him repeatedly over the head following which, quote, it
was on, close quote.”
2

1
2
3

July 23, 2014, People v. Williams, No. S-218741 (Cal. July 23, 2014) (Opp’n Ex. 9). This federal
habeas petition followed.
II.

EXHAUSTION OF REMEDIES

4

Courts must “dismiss a petition for a writ of habeas corpus containing any claims that have

5

not been exhausted,” Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 528–29 (1982), or deny the unexhausted claims

6

on the merits if they contain no colorable federal claims, Cassett v. Stewart, 406 F.3d 614, 624

7
8
9

(9th Cir. 2005).
Respondent has argued that petitioner has brought three unexhausted claims, namely
petitioner failed to present his claims that (i) the state court’s exclusion of Doe’s statements to

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Kelly Graham violated his right to present a defense under Chambers; (ii) the failure to seek

12

admission of Doe’s statements to Graham constituted IAC; and (iii) cumulative errors pervaded

13

the trial. (Answer 2–3.) Respondent argues that ruling on the merits here would be appropriate as

14
none of the unexhausted claims have any colorable federal claims, or in the alternative dismiss the
15
16
17

entire petition. (Id.) Petitioner concedes that his cumulative error claim was not exhausted in the
state courts and has thus asked for leave to amend his petition to delete this unexhausted claim.

18

With respect to Doe’s hearsay statements to Graham, petitioner does not contend that he

19

directly raised claims relating to Doe’s hearsay statements to Graham. Rather, petitioner argues

20

that such claims have been exhausted because the “legal bases for the claims were articulated in

21

the due process and IAC arguments related to the Savage testimony.” (Reply 3.) Thus, argued

22
petitioner, because the “Savage and Graham claims are essentially factually and legally identical,
23
24

the arguments that the exclusion of Savage’s testimony violated constitutional rights necessarily

25

implied the same violations with respect to the Graham testimony.” (Id. (citing Wooten v.

26

Kirkland, 540 F.3d 1019, 1025 (9th Cir. 2008)).) In fact, petitioner asserts that he “described in

27

detail the Graham testimony (and noted its similarity to the Savage testimony) and the trial court’s

28

related evidentiary rulings” in his briefs to the California Court of Appeals and California
3

1

Supreme Court. (Reply 3 (citing Pet. Ex. B at 7–8, 11).) In the alternative, relying on Ninth

2

Circuit precedent, petitioner argues that he has a “right to amend his petition to delete his []

3

unexhausted claims” and that the Court should give him leave to do so. (Reply 3 (citing James v.

4

Giles, 221 F.3d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 2000)).)

5
6

As a threshold matter, the Court decides whether petitioner’s habeas claims relating to
Graham’s testimony are essentially factually and legally identical to his habeas claims relating to

7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14

Savage’s testimony such that the purported violations with respect to Graham’s testimony should
be considered exhausted. As reported by Graham, shortly after the incident and after Doe had just
been discharged from the hospital, Doe told Graham:
[On the day of the incident], her husband had been drinking and was a “little
belligerent.” Following an exchange of words, he pushed her, causing her to fall
against a window seat. She responded by grabbing a cane, then striking him over
the head. As described by [Doe], “I guess I didn’t hit him hard enough, because
he grabbed it and hit me back.”
(Pet. Ex. C at 6.) As reported by Savage, at some time not long after Doe had been discharged

15
from the hospital, Doe told Savage on the telephone:
16
17
18
19

[Doe] was remorseful of the incident, preceding her explanation with something
similar to “I don’t like what I did . . . I put my husband in jail.” She then admitted
that she “started it.” . . . She explained that she went to their home to retrieve
some items. According to [Doe], her husband had been drinking, and he said
something offensive. She responded by grabbing a cane and striking him
repeatedly over the head, following which “it was on.”

20
21
22

(Pet Ex. C at 9.)
Petitioner is correct that certain claims can be “sufficiently related” or “intertwined” such

23

that the exhaustion of one claim amounts to exhaustion of another. (Reply 3.) “Claims are

24

‘sufficiently related’ or ‘intertwined’ for exhaustion purposes when, by raising one claim, the

25

petition clearly implies another error.” Wooten, 540 F.3d at 1025. Under Wooten, a “claim is not

26
27

‘fairly presented’ if the state court ‘must read beyond a petition or a brief . . . in order to find
material’ that alerts it to the presence of a federal claim.” Id. (citation omitted). Additionally, this

28
4

1
2
3

“exception does not apply when language in a petition for review indicates a petitioner’s ‘strategic
choice’ not to present an issue for review.” Id.
First, the Court recognizes that Doe’s statements to Graham and Savage are very similar to

4

each other and raise the same legal and constitutional issues. The Court also recognizes, on the

5

other hand, that the circumstances surrounding each statement differ, and so each may have

6

different consequences. For instance, the statement to Graham was closer in time to the incident,

7
8
9

and included the additional detail that petitioner pushed Doe, causing her to fall to the ground.
Additionally, Doe’s statements to Graham do not include Doe’s statement of remorse to Savage
about causing her husband to go to jail, which the Court of Appeal viewed as weighing against a

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

finding that her statements to Savage were sufficiently reliable. See Williams, 2014 WL 1465884,

12

at *3. Were this the only issue though, the Court may have been inclined to consider the claims

13

with respect to Graham’s proffered testimony as sufficiently exhausted because they would have

14
been based on similar legal issues as the Savage claims, and both the California Court of Appeal
15
16
17
18

and California Supreme Court were, by virtue of petitioner’s briefs, aware that Graham’s
testimony had also been excluded on largely the same grounds as Savage’s testimony.
However, it appears from the state court briefs that petitioner made a strategic choice not to

19

present the issues relating to Graham’s proffered testimony for review, which would preclude the

20

Court’s consideration of the Graham claims as exhausted by virtue of their relationship to the

21

Savage claims. See Wooten, 540 F.3d at 1025 (stating that the exception to the exhaustion rule

22
does not apply when the petition for review “indicates a petitioner’s ‘strategic choice’”).
23
24

Petitioner described Graham’s proffered testimony and the trial court’s decision to exclude the

25

testimony in his briefs to the state courts, but chose not present it to the Court of Appeal or the

26

California Supreme Court for review when petitioner could have done so, especially if, as

27

petitioner contends, the factual and legal issues are virtually identical. (Pet. Ex. B at 3, 7–8, 11

28

(petitioner’s brief to the Court of Appeal characterizing Savage’s testimony as providing evidence
5

1

that Doe began the argument “without any physical provocation on petitioner’s part, hitting

2

petitioner multiple times . . . with a wooden cane”); Opp’n Ex. 4 at 4–5, 9–10 (petitioner’s brief to

3

the California Supreme Court acknowledging that the statements are similar except that Doe’s

4

statement to Graham asserts that petitioner “initially pushed [Doe]”). The Court thus finds that

5

petitioner’s due process and IAC claims related to Graham’s testimony are unexhausted.

6

The Ninth Circuit has held that a “federal habeas petitioner has a right to amend a mixed

7
8
9

petition to delete unexhausted claims as an alternative to suffering a dismissal.” James, 221 F.3d
at 1077. This result is exactly what petitioner seeks here. Thus, the Court DISMISSES the petition
with leave to amend to include only the exhausted claims. Petitioner is ORDERED to file an

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

amended petition within ten (10) business days of this Order. Respondent must file an answer

12

within fourteen (14) business days from the filing of the amended petition, and petitioner must file

13

a traverse within fourteen (14) business days of the filing of respondent’s answer.

14
IT IS SO ORDERED.
15
16
17
18

Dated: May 31, 2016
______________________________________
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6