Blakewood v. Hartley
Filing
18
Order by Hon. Lucy H. Koh granting 17 Motion for Leave to File Amended Reply. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix A)(lhklc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/1/2013)
1
2
3
4
Robert Bratberg, Esq. SBN 99368
1014 Hopper Ave. #425
Santa Rosa, CA 95403
Telephone No.: (707) 293-6298
Fax No.: (707) 546-3299
E-mail: rb95403@sbcglobal.net
Attorney for Petitioner
5
6
7
8
9
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
SAN JOSE DIVISION
12
13
ROBERT REEVES BLAKEWOOD,
14
15
16
17
18
Petitioner,
v.
JAMES D. HARTLEY, Warden,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 5:11-CV-00142-LHK
AMENDED REPLY TO ANSWER TO
PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
AND AMENDED POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER’S REPLY
TO ANSWER TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Amended Reply to Answer & Amended P&A’s in Support to Petitioner’s Reply to Ans. to Petition for
Writ of Habeas Corpus,Robert Reeves Blakewood v. James D. Hartley, Warden, Case No. 5:11-cv00142-LHK
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1
2
3
4
5
I.
Amended Reply To Answer To Petition For Writ of Habeas Corpus . 1
II.
Amended Points and Authorities in Support of Petitioner’s Reply
to Answer to Petition For Writ of Habeas Corpus . . . . . . . 2
6
7
8
9
III. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Amended Reply to Answer & Amended P&A’s in Support of Petitioner’s Reply to Answer to Petition
for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Robert Reeves Blakewood v. James D. Hartley, Warden, Case No. 5:11-cv00142-LHK
i
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
1
2
CASES
3
Bumper v. North Carolina, 391 U.S. 543 . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,5,6,9,10,12,13,15,18,19,21,22
4
Dortch v. O’Leary 863 F. 2d 1337 (7th Cir. 1988) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
5
Gamble v. State of Oklahoma 583 F.2d 1161 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3,4,6,7,19,23
6
Harrington v. Richter (2011) 131 S.Ct. 770 .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7
Herrera v. Lemaster (10th Cir.2000) 225 F.3d 1176. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8
Mack v. Cupp 564 F.2d at 901 (9th Cir. 1977). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22,23
9
Ortiz-Sandavol v. Gomez 81 F.3d at 899 (9th Cir. 1996). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
10
People v. Harrington (1970) 2 Cal.3d 991 .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15,16,17,18
11
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, (1973)412 U.S. 218 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20,21
12
Silverman v. United States (1961) 365 U.S. 505
13
Smallwood v. Gibson 191 F.3d 1257 (10th Cir. 1999). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
14
U.S. Ex Rel. Bostick v. Peters 3 F.3d 1023 (7th Cir. 1993). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
15
United States v. Griffin 530 F.2d 739 (7th Cir. 1976) . . . . . .
16
United States v. Impink (9th Cir. 1984) 728 F.2d 1228 . . . . . . . . . . .
17
United States v. Shaibu (9th Cir. 1990) 920 F.2d 1423 . . . . .5, 6,7,9,0,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,20
18
Williams v. Taylor (2000) 529 U.S. 362 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,7,8,19,20,21
19
Wong Sun v. United States (1963) 371 U.S. 471 . . . . .
20
STATUTES
21
28 U.S.C. §2254(d)(1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
22
28 U.S.C. §2254(d)(2). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
23
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS
24
Fourth Amendment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2,3,6,7,9,21,22,19,23
. . . . . 4
.3,4,6,7,19,23
. . . . . . . ..5,6,9,10,11,13,15,18,19,22
. . . . . . . . . . . 16,17,18
. . . . . . . .14,18
. . . . . . . 5,9,10,12,15,18,19,21,22
. .
.4,7,19,23
.4,7,19,20,21,23
25
26
27
28
Amended Reply to Answer & Amended P&A’s in Support of Petitioner’s Reply to Answer to Petition
for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Robert Reeves Blakewood v. James D. Hartley, Warden, Case No. 5:11-cv00142-LHK
ii
AMENDED REPLY TO ANSWER TO PETITION
FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
1
2
Attorney for Petitioner Robert Reeves Blakewood does hereby
3
respectfully file this Amended Reply to Answer to Petition for Writ of
4
Habeas Corpus and alleges as follows:
5
1.
Paragraph one, the “CUSTODY” paragraph of Respondent’s Answer
6
to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is untrue because it
7
alleges that the Petitioner’s custody is lawful and proper;
8
2. Paragraph two, the “GENERAL AND SPECIFIC DENIALS” paragraph of
9
Respondent’s Answer to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is
10
untrue because it alleges that the State Court ruling was not
11
based upon an unreasonable determination of fact or was not
12
contrary to or not involved an unreasonable application of
13
clearly established United States Supreme Court law.
14
Furthermore, this paragraph is untrue as it alleges that
15
Petitioner’s conviction was not obtained as a result of an
16
unlawful search and seizure in violation of the Fourth
17
Amendment.
18
that Petitioner was not denied a full and fair opportunity to
19
litigate his Fourth Amendment claims in the underlying state
20
proceedings.
21
Finally, this paragraph is untrue as it alleges
3. Petitioner incorporates by reference and resubmits his
22
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus as if fully set forth
23
herein; and,
24
25
4. Petitioner also incorporates by reference the Memorandum of
Points and Authorities to his Petition and this Reply.
26
27
28
Amended Reply to Answer & Amended P&A’s in Support of Petitioner’s Reply to Answer to Petition
for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Robert Reeves Blakewood v. James D. Hartley, Warden, Case No. 5:11-cv00142-LHK
1
1
AMENDED POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER’S
REPLY TO ANSWER TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
2
Petitioner has reviewed the Attorney General’s Points and
3
Authorities and notes that they are in accord with the Petitioner’s
4
presentation of his case in at least two significant respects which
5
are noted as follows:
6
First, the Petitioner is in accord with the Attorney General’s
7
summary of the Statement of Facts and secondly, the Petitioner is in
8
accord with the Attorney General’s recognition of the standard for
9
determining, pursuant to established authority, whether the Petitioner
10
has had a full and fair opportunity to litigate his Fourth Amendment
11
claims within the State Courts.
12
authority upon which the Attorney General and Petitioner agree will be
13
more fully developed later herein.
14
15
16
In this regard, the established
With respect to the Statement of Facts with which the Petitioner
and the Attorney General are in accord, those facts appear as follows:
That upon responding to a call and conversing with Doe at the
17
front of Petitioner’s home, Officer Shoemaker knocked on the
18
Petitioner’s front door three times and when the Petitioner answered,
19
Shoemaker asked the Petitioner to get Alford.
20
Petitioner turned away from the front door to get Alford from
21
upstairs and Shoemaker followed Petitioner inside to the entry/dining
22
room area.
23
Once inside, Shoemaker continued to question Petitioner whereupon
24
Petitioner ultimately admitted that he had engaged in sexual contact
25
with Doe.
26
27
28
Amended Reply to Answer & Amended P&A’s in Support of Petitioner’s Reply to Answer to Petition
for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Robert Reeves Blakewood v. James D. Hartley, Warden, Case No. 5:11-cv00142-LHK
2
1
Shoemaker then went outside to consult with her Sergeant who was
2
with Doe and then Shoemaker returned to the house and advised the
3
Petitioner of his Miranda rights.
4
Thereafter, Petitioner made further admissions when, thereafter,
5
Shoemaker again contacted her Sergeant outside, then returned and
6
arrested Petitioner.
7
In addition to the above, the Trial record reflects that at no
8
time did law enforcement possess either a search warrant or an arrest
9
warrant.
10
Since each of the above noted facts do appear in the Trial
11
record, in essence, they should be considered the Undisputed Facts of
12
Petitioner’s case.
13
The Attorney General and the Petitioner are in additional accord
14
with respect to the legal criteria regarding whether the Petitioner
15
had, in fact, received a full and fair opportunity to advance his
16
Fourth Amendment claims within the State Courts.
17
In this regard, both the Attorney General and the Petitioner
18
agree that the case authority of Herrera v. Lemaster (10th Cir. 2000)
19
225 F.3d 1176 and Gamble v. State of Oklahoma 583 F.2d 1161, when
20
applied to a Habeas claim, constitutes well established authority for
21
guiding the reviewing Court’s determination as to whether, under the
22
circumstances, the Petitioner when advancing his Fourth Amendment
23
claim, based on colorable U.S. Supreme Court precedent has, in fact,
24
been provided an opportunity to litigate those U.S. Supreme Court
25
precedents, on point, while presenting his Fourth Amendment arguments
26
within the State Courts.
27
Amended Reply to Answer & Amended P&A’s in Support of Petitioner’s Reply to Answer to Petition
for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Robert Reeves Blakewood v. James D. Hartley, Warden, Case No. 5:11-cv00142-LHK
28
3
1
Furthermore, even though his Petition did not specifically cite
2
28 U.S.C. §2254 (d)(2) or Williams v. Taylor (2000) 529 U.S. 362, the
3
fact is, Petitioner cited case authority supporting Williams, supra
4
where, as argued in his Petition, the State Courts based their
5
decision on an unreasonable determination of the facts.
6
as cited in the Petition, are U.S. Ex Rel. Bostick v. Peters 3 F.3d
7
1023 (7th Cir. 1993), Dortch v. O’Leary 863 F.2d 1337 (7th Cir. 1988)
8
and Smallwood v. Gibson 191 F.3d 1257 (10th Cir. 1999).
These cases,
9
Also, as to 28 U.S.C. Section 2254 (d)(1), which essentially
10
states that a Habeas Corpus Petition cannot be granted unless the
11
State Court’s ruling was “contrary to or involved in unreasonable
12
application of clearly established U. S. Supreme Court law, that
13
recitation of authority on point, coincides with the criteria as noted
14
in both Herrera, supra and Gamble, supra, with which both parties
15
agree can be determinative as to whether Habeas relief should be
16
granted.
17
Furthermore, the Attorney General and the Petitioner herein,
18
would be in accord with Harrington v. Richter (2011) 131 S.Ct. 770,
19
which provides that Habeas relief can only be permitted where the
20
State Court’s ruling on the claim being presented in Federal Court was
21
so lacking in justification that there was an error well understood
22
and comprehended in existing law beyond any possibility for fair
23
minded disagreement.
24
In this respect and as discussed further in this reply when
25
noting Petitioner’s initial argument, the State Court’s outright
26
failure to acknowledge the well-established precedent in Bumper v.
27
Amended Reply to Answer & Amended P&A’s in Support of Petitioner’s Reply to Answer to Petition
for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Robert Reeves Blakewood v. James D. Hartley, Warden, Case No. 5:11-cv00142-LHK
28
4
1
North Carolina 391 U.S. 543, Silverman v. United States (1961) 365
2
U.S. 505 and Wong Sun v. United States (1963) 371 U.S. 471, clearly
3
demonstrates that the State Court’s overall error in failing to apply
4
those U.S. Supreme Court precedents on point, as advanced in the State
5
Courts by the Petitioner was, in fact, beyond any possibility for fair
6
minded disagreement, in light of the clear cut application of Bumper,
7
supra, Silverman, supra and Wong Sun, supra to the Undisputed Facts of
8
Petitioner’s case.
9
Consequently as emphasized herein, it is extremely noteworthy
10
that even though the Attorney General and the Petitioner are in
11
complete accord as to the operable Undisputed Facts of Petitioner’s
12
case and the well-established exceptions to the Stone bar, the
13
Attorney General, nevertheless proceeds to oppose this Petition by
14
waging an argument, which, in actuality, defies and flies in the face
15
of the application of the Undisputed Facts and the Stone bar legal
16
authorities to which they initially agreed with Petitioner, in terms
17
of determining whether the Petitioner has, in fact, effectively argued
18
that he is entitled to an overall grant of his Habeas Corpus Petition.
19
Again, as argued above, despite agreeing with the Petitioner in
20
the two above noted significant respects, the Attorney General’s
21
answer falls prey to a variety of the State Courts’ glaring
22
misapplications of the Undisputed Facts of Petitioner’s case, as well
23
as the State Court’s failure to recognize and incorporate the
24
Petitioner’s U.S. Supreme Court case authority (as well as United
25
States v. Shaibu (9th Cir. 1990) 920 F.2d 1423, as advanced by
26
Petitioner at the Appellate Court and the California Supreme Court.)
27
Amended Reply to Answer & Amended P&A’s in Support of Petitioner’s Reply to Answer to Petition
for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Robert Reeves Blakewood v. James D. Hartley, Warden, Case No. 5:11-cv00142-LHK
28
5
1
Despite the Attorney General’s concession that the standards set
2
by Herrera, supra and Gamble, supra are well established exceptions to
3
the Stone bar which is wholly consistent with the Petitioner’s overall
4
argument on that point, as urged in his Petition, the Attorney General
5
nevertheless, proceeds to fruitlessly argue that the mere fact the
6
Petitioner was simply permitted to file and argue his Motion to
7
Suppress, based on his well-established Fourth Amendment claims,
8
throughout the State Court system, in and of itself, somehow
9
demonstrates that the Petitioner did, in fact, receive a full and fair
10
11
opportunity to litigate his Fourth Amendment claims.
Without undue elaboration, the Attorney General’s baseless and
12
fallacious argument in this regard, simply ignores their initial
13
acknowledgement of the well-established authority as noted herein,
14
with respect to the standard which must be applied when determining,
15
whether or not, the Petitioner did, in fact, receive a full and fair
16
opportunity to litigate his Fourth Amendment claims as presented by
17
him at each level in the State Courts.(See for example, in this
18
regard, Herrera, supra, and Gamble, supra)
19
In fact, a close comparison of the Attorney General’s answer to
20
the Petitioner’s Writ, demonstrates that the only two areas where the
21
parties substantially disagree are the Attorney General’s adoption of
22
the results of the State Court’s willful failure to colorably apply
23
the Undisputed Facts of the Petitioner’s case to the U.S. Supreme
24
Court precedent in Bumper, supra, Silverman, supra, and Wong Sun,
25
supra, as well as Shaibu, supra, where, by failing to carefully apply
26
the Undisputed Facts of Petitioner’s case, the State Court’s ignored
27
Amended Reply to Answer & Amended P&A’s in Support of Petitioner’s Reply to Answer to Petition
for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Robert Reeves Blakewood v. James D. Hartley, Warden, Case No. 5:11-cv00142-LHK
28
6
1
the holding in Williams v. Taylor, supra
2
(9th Circuit 1990) 920 F.2d
1423 and 28 U.S.C. §2254(d)(2).
3
Furthermore, the only other area where the parties disagree
4
concerns the Attorney General’s vain attempt to argue that, in fact,
5
the Petitioner received a full and fair opportunity to litigate his
6
claims, simply by virtue of the fact that he was allowed to argue his
7
Fourth Amendment claims, even where the Attorney General’s argument in
8
that regard, wholly ignores the clear cut applicability of the
9
authority of Herrera, supra, Gamble, supra, Williams v. Taylor, supra,
10
28 U.S.C. §2254 (d)(1) and 28 U.S.C.§2254 (d)(2), which the Attorney
11
General themselves have acknowledged are determinative as to whether a
12
Petitioner has, in fact, received an opportunity to litigate his
13
Fourth Amendment claims in the State Courts, after referencing and
14
urging U.S. Supreme Court case precedent, on point, and applying that
15
authority to the established facts in his case at each level therein.
16
As to the first area of disagreement between the Attorney General
17
and the Petitioner, this Petitioner emphasizes the Attorney General’s
18
overall misguided attempts to justify the State Court’s failure to
19
carefully analyze the Undisputed Facts in Petitioner’s case as well as
20
the State Courts willful failure to colorably apply U.S. Supreme Court
21
precedent, on point, as advanced by the Petitioner in connection with
22
the Undisputed Facts in his case.
23
As noted herein above, the Attorney General’s adoption of and
24
attempt to justify the State Courts overall failure to carefully
25
analyze the Undisputed Facts in Petitioner’s case, pursuant to the
26
27
28
Amended Reply to Answer & Amended P&A’s in Support of Petitioner’s Reply to Answer to Petition
for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Robert Reeves Blakewood v. James D. Hartley, Warden, Case No. 5:11-cv00142-LHK
7
1
mandate of Williams, supra, and 28 U.S.C.§2254(d)(2) are, in fact,
2
glaring in their significance when outlined as follows:
3
For example, as vainly urged by the Attorney General, the
4
TrialJudge
found that “Shoemaker contacted Defendant at the door of
5
his home, questioned him about Doe’s allegations and decided that he
6
should be arrested and given his Miranda rights.”
7
Trial Court, wholly defies the Undisputed Statement of Facts where,
8
even the Attorney General concedes that the only exchange which
9
occurred at the Petitioner’s front door was, in fact, Shoemaker’s
This finding by the
10
demand that Petitioner seek out Alford.
11
Court’s finding that the Petitioner was arrested at the front door,
12
wholly defies the Statement of Facts that Shoemaker followed the
13
Petitioner inside his house when the Petitioner, at Shoemaker’s
14
request, went to retrieve Alford and where, once inside and without
15
requesting entry, Shoemaker proceeded to question Petitioner, prior to
16
providing Petitioner with his Miranda warnings, whereupon Petitioner
17
provided damaging admissions in advance of receiving his Miranda
18
warnings.
19
Furthermore, the Trial
In the face of the Trial Court’s above noted misplaced and
20
incorrect findings, that Court also, without factual support concluded
21
that there was consensual encounter at the entrance to Petitioner’s
22
home and admittedly inside.
23
In light of the foregoing, the Trial Court wholly failed to
24
carefully analyze the Undisputed Facts of Petitioner’s case as
25
initially conceded to by the Attorney General that Shoemaker entered
26
Petitioner’s home by merely following Petitioner into his home when
27
Amended Reply to Answer & Amended P&A’s in Support of Petitioner’s Reply to Answer to Petition
for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Robert Reeves Blakewood v. James D. Hartley, Warden, Case No. 5:11-cv00142-LHK
28
8
1
Petitioner turned his back to retrieve Alford at Shoemaker’s request
2
and where, under the Undisputed Facts of Petitioner’s case, Shoemaker
3
gained entry into Petitioner’s home, without making a formal request
4
to enter and where, thereafter, extracting damaging admissions from
5
the Petitioner, prior to providing the Petitioner with his Miranda
6
warnings.
7
Consequently, despite well established Fourth Amendment law on
8
point, the Trial Judge ’s findings (with which the Attorney General
9
erroneously adopts) that the Petitioner was cooperative when speaking
10
inside his house with Shoemaker and the Trial Judge ’s finding that
11
the Petitioner said nothing to object to Shoemaker’s presence in his
12
home, is of no overall legal consequences or impact as to whether
13
Petitioner, in fact, provided legal implied consent, given the clear
14
cut applicability of Bumper, supra, Silverman supra, Wong Sun, supra,
15
and the application of the true facts of U.S. v. Shaibu, supra, to the
16
Undisputed Facts of Petitioner’s case to which the Attorney General
17
has initially conceded as applicable.
Thus, for the above stated reasons, it is clear that the Trial
18
19
Judge
failed to carefully analyze the Undisputed Facts of
20
Petitioner’s case and failed to colorably apply Fourth Amendment
21
Constitutional law, on point, which ultimately resulted in the Trial
22
Court’s erroneous denial of Petitioner’s Suppression Motion, since
23
from a Constitutional basis, the Petitioner did nothing, said nothing,
24
nor acted in any way, which was inconsistent with his Constitutionally
25
protected rights and thus, his acts or failure to act could never
26
27
28
Amended Reply to Answer & Amended P&A’s in Support of Petitioner’s Reply to Answer to Petition
for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Robert Reeves Blakewood v. James D. Hartley, Warden, Case No. 5:11-cv00142-LHK
9
1
justify a finding of implied consent pursuant to Bumper, supra,
2
Silverman supra, Wong Sun, supra.
3
Thus, the Trial Court’s failure to colorably apply Fourth
4
Amendment Supreme Court precedent, on point, when based on the
5
Undisputed Facts as conceded to by the Attorney General, clearly shows
6
that the Trial Judge, by his failure to apply U.S. Supreme Court
7
authority, on point, and his failure to carefully analyze the
8
Undisputed Facts of Petitioner’s case, wholly erred in denying
9
Petitioner’s Suppression Motion, especially under the Undisputed
10
Facts, where Shoemaker never requested entry and where Shoemaker’s
11
entry was without benefit of a warrant.
12
The Attorney General’s attempt to adopt and justify the
13
Appellate Court’s wholly erroneous finding of implied consent again
14
demonstrates that the Attorney General has fallen prey to the
15
Appellate Court’s failure to carefully analyze the Undisputed Facts of
16
Petitioner’s case as well as the Appellate Court’s willful failure to
17
colorably apply U.S. Supreme Court case precedent, along with Shaibu,
18
supra, to the Undisputed Facts to Petitioner’s case.
19
First, it is noteworthy that nowhere in their answer does the
20
Attorney General address the clear cut applicability of the U.S.
21
Supreme Court precedent, on point, as raised by the Petitioner, when
22
referring to Bumper, supra, Silverman, supra, and Wong Sun, supra,
23
especially where, as argued in his Petition, the Petitioner notes how
24
the Appellate Court’s three findings of implied consent wholly defy
25
the essence of the holdings of Bumper, supra,
26
Wong Sun, supra.
27
Amended Reply to Answer & Amended P&A’s in Support of Petitioner’s Reply to Answer to Petition
for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Robert Reeves Blakewood v. James D. Hartley, Warden, Case No. 5:11-cv00142-LHK
28
10
Silverman, supra, and
1
In this regard, the Petitioner noted that the Appellate Court
2
found implied consent based, in fact, on three faulty factual
3
findings.
4
These findings are as follows:
1.
asked Petitioner to get Alford.
5
6
2.
That Petitioner, upon Shoemaker’s request, went to get
Alford.
7
8
That the Petitioner left the door open when Shoemaker
3.
That when Petitioner went to get Alford, without seeking
Petitioner’s request, Shoemaker gained entry into
9
10
Petitioner’s home and before being Mirandized,
11
Petitioner cooperated in responding to Shoemaker’s
12
questions.
13
As emphasized in his Petition, the Petitioner noted that by
14
basing their findings of implied consent on the above three factors,
15
the Appellate Court willfully failed to colorably apply U.S. Supreme
16
Court precedent, on point, to the Undisputed Facts of Petitioner’s
17
case, as urged by him, where the Petitioner noted the following:
18
As to the Appellate Court’s finding of implied consent based on
19
the fact that the Petitioner left the door open when Shoemaker asked
20
him to get Alford, the Appellate Court willfully failed to apply clear
21
cut U.S. Supreme Court precedent in the case of Silverman, supra,
22
which stands for a citizen’s right to retreat into the sanctity of his
23
home and to be safe from warrantless intrusion, even if he is under
24
investigation.
25
As to the findings by the Appellate Court of implied consent,
26
based on the fact that the Petitioner went to get Alford at the
27
Amended Reply to Answer & Amended P&A’s in Support of Petitioner’s Reply to Answer to Petition
for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Robert Reeves Blakewood v. James D. Hartley, Warden, Case No. 5:11-cv00142-LHK
28
11
1
specific request of Shoemaker, this finding wholly ignores Bumper
2
supra, which holds that actions in acquiescence to police authority
3
cannot be deemed consent.
As to the Appellate Court’s third finding of implied consent,
4
5
based upon the fact that Petitioner cooperated by answering
6
Shoemaker’s questions prior to receiving his Miranda warnings, the
7
Appellate Court wholly ignored Petitioner’s argument that, pursuant to
8
Wong Sun, supra, statements or observations made after an unrequested
9
and unlawful entry cannot be used at all, against a citizen,
10
especially where, as applied in this case, to find implied consent.
In essence, the Appellate Court unjustifiably relied on the above
11
12
three facts, as words, acts, or conduct, to justify its finding of
13
implied consent, even where, as demonstrated above, everything the
14
Petitioner did or failed to do was wholly consistent with his
15
constitutionally protected rights and activities as enunciated and
16
clarified by Bumper, supra,
Silverman, supra, and Wong Sun, supra.
Next, the Attorney General attempts to adopt and justify the
17
18
propriety of the Appellate Court’s decision that U.S. v. Shaibu,
19
supra, is not controlling.
Yet, in doing so, the Attorney General fails to closely examine
20
21
how the true facts of Shaibu, supra, as found by that Court, are in
22
close alignment with the operable Undisputed Facts in Petitioner’s
23
case.
24
The Attorney General’s and the Appellate Court’s recount of the
25
significant facts and legal conclusions in Shaibu, supra, are not
26
accurate by virtue of the Appellate Court’s and Attorney General’s
27
Amended Reply to Answer & Amended P&A’s in Support of Petitioner’s Reply to Answer to Petition
for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Robert Reeves Blakewood v. James D. Hartley, Warden, Case No. 5:11-cv00142-LHK
28
12
1
omission of certain salient facts and the true holding of Shaibu,
2
supra.
3
The Court in Shaibu, supra, distinctly found that when Shaibu
4
turned around to retreat into his apartment, he, in fact, left his
5
door open, which both the Appellate Court and the Attorney General
6
failed to note.
7
The significance of the Appellate Court’s and the Attorney
8
General’s failure to acknowledge that the Shaibu Court found that
9
Shaibu retreated into his house, leaving the front door open, cannot
10
be overstated, since as noted herein above, the Appellate Court, in
11
rendering their three faulty findings of implied consent, noted that
12
one of those factors was the fact that the Petitioner had left the
13
front door of his residence open, when, at Officer Shoemaker’s
14
request, the Petitioner retreated into his home to get Alford.
15
(Parenthetically, as noted herein, Petitioner’s compliance with
16
Shoemaker’s request to get Alford and his leaving the door open, when
17
he retreated into the sanctity of his home, are, as argued in his
18
Petition, Constitutionally protected activities pursuant to Bumper,
19
supra and Silverman, supra.)
20
Again, with reference to the Appellate Court’s and the Attorney
21
General’s recount of the Shaibu Court’s findings of facts and ultimate
22
conclusions of law, concerning the fact that the Shaibu Court did find
23
that Shaibu had indeed, left the door to his apartment open, when he
24
retreated into his apartment, the Appellate Court and the Attorney
25
General further failed to relate the Shaibu Court’s further findings
26
of fact and conclusions of law that Shaibu opened the door not to let
27
Amended Reply to Answer & Amended P&A’s in Support of Petitioner’s Reply to Answer to Petition
for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Robert Reeves Blakewood v. James D. Hartley, Warden, Case No. 5:11-cv00142-LHK
28
13
1
the police enter, but only for himself to step out of the apartment to
2
meet visitors outside, rather than inside and that there was no
3
contention that the police expressly or impliedly asked consent to
4
enter, nor that Shaibu expressly granted or refused entry.
5
Court went on to conclude that it is one thing to infer consent from
6
actions responding to a police request.
7
sanction the police walking into a person’s home without stopping at
8
the door to ask permission.
9
The Shaibu
It is quite another to
Under the circumstances of Shaibu, supra, the Court noted that
10
the defendant’s failure to object to an entry, especially in the
11
absence of a specific request by the police for permission to enter,
12
is not sufficient to establish free and voluntary consent.
13
concluded by observing, “we will not infer both the request and the
14
consent.”
15
The Court
Yet, in the face of the Appellate Court’s and the Attorney
16
General’s failure to fully recount the salient features of Shaibu,
17
supra, as noted above, the Appellate Court and the Attorney General,
18
here, make reference to cases which are factually distinguishable from
19
Shaibu, supra, and the Undisputed Facts of Petitioner’s case, to
20
support each of their assertions that Shaibu, supra, is not
21
controlling, as applied to the Undisputed Facts of Petitioner’s case.
22
First, the Attorney General cites the Appellate Court’s misplaced
23
reliance on United States v. Impink (9th Cir. 1984) 728 F.2d 1228,
24
which is factually distinct from Petitioner’s case because that aspect
25
of Impink, supra, focuses on “assisting in the search of others,”
26
which is not factually germane to Petitioner’s Undisputed Facts when,
27
Amended Reply to Answer & Amended P&A’s in Support of Petitioner’s Reply to Answer to Petition
for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Robert Reeves Blakewood v. James D. Hartley, Warden, Case No. 5:11-cv00142-LHK
28
14
1
especially, the Petitioner relies on the holding of Shaibu, supra,
2
where the Shaibu opinion, in part, makes specific reference to Impink,
3
supra, which states that in implied consent cases “the suspect himself
4
takes some action” showing “unequivocal and specific” consent.
5
In this regard, as emphasized in the Undisputed Facts, the fact
6
that Petitioner remained silent and did not object to Shoemaker’s
7
warrantless, unrequested entry into his home and his mere cooperation
8
thereafter, by answering Shoemaker’s questions, prior to her providing
9
Petitioner with his Miranda warnings, in no way establishes implied
10
consent, pursuant to Petitioner’s reliance on Bumper, supra,
11
Silverman, supra, and Wong Sun, supra, where in fact, under those
12
circumstances, Petitioner did nothing, said nothing, nor acted in any
13
way which was inconsistent with his Constitutional rights as provided
14
by Bumper, supra,
15
Silverman, supra, and Wong Sun, supra.
Thus, the Appellate Court’s and the Attorney General’s reliance
16
on Impink, supra, for the above stated reasons, does not support their
17
argument that Petitioner somehow provided implied consent to
18
Shoemaker’s otherwise warrantless and unlawful entry.
19
Furthermore, the Appellate Court’s and the Attorney General’s
20
reliance on People v. Harrington (1970) 2 Cal.3d 991, is factually
21
distinguishable when compared to the true facts of Shaibu, supra, and
22
the Undisputed Facts of Petitioner’s case since, unlike Shaibu and
23
Petitioner, who did absolutely nothing to indicate that they had acted
24
in any way, by undertaking some act or uttering some words to imply
25
consent, in Harrington, supra, after the Officer asked if he could go
26
inside Harrington’s residence (which is clearly not part of the
27
Amended Reply to Answer & Amended P&A’s in Support of Petitioner’s Reply to Answer to Petition
for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Robert Reeves Blakewood v. James D. Hartley, Warden, Case No. 5:11-cv00142-LHK
28
15
1
surrounding facts of Shaibu, supra, and Petitioner’s case), Harrington
2
made a gesture by extending his left hand, whereupon the officer
3
entered Harrington’s apartment.
Thus, the facts of Harrington, supra, are totally distinct from
4
5
the Undisputed Facts of Petitioner’s case, since in Harrington, supra,
6
the officer not only requested entry into Harrington’s apartment, but
7
Harrington responded thereto in making a gesture by extending his left
8
hand, in clear acquiescence to the officer’s request to enter.
9
under the circumstances, the Harrington Court was clearly justified in
10
Thus,
finding implied consent.
11
Furthermore, the Appellate Court’s and the Attorney General’s
12
reliance on United States v. Griffin 530 F.2d 739 (7th Cir.1976) is
13
misplaced since, as noted in the Shaibu opinion, unlike the facts of
14
Shaibu, supra, the police ultimately requested admission into
15
Griffin’s and his codefendant Russell’s apartment on two occasions.
16
Thus, the Seventh Circuit found consent, not only because the police
17
twice asked to enter the apartment, but also because, even though,
18
Russell slammed the front door after the first request by the police
19
to be admitted into the apartment, upon answering the door after the
20
police’s second knock and their second request to enter, Russell
21
stepped back into the apartment, leaving the door partially open.
In Griffin, supra, neither officer later recalled any words
22
23
spoken by Russell during these moments.
The officers entered the
24
apartment and followed Russell down a short hallway into the living
25
room.
26
27
28
Amended Reply to Answer & Amended P&A’s in Support of Petitioner’s Reply to Answer to Petition
for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Robert Reeves Blakewood v. James D. Hartley, Warden, Case No. 5:11-cv00142-LHK
16
The Shaibu opinion noted how Griffin, supra, was dissimilar from
1
2
Shaibu, supra, in two fundamentally significant respects.
First, in
3
Griffin, supra, the police requested entry while in Shaibu’s case,
4
they did not.
5
interpreted the acts of opening the door and stepping back, as
6
responding affirmatively to a clear request by the police to enter the
7
home.
8
Shaibu opened the door, not to let the police enter, but only for
9
himself to step out of his apartment to meet visitors outside rather
Second, in Griffin, supra, the Seventh Circuit
The Shaibu Court noted that no affirmative acts took place.
10
than inside.
11
contention that the police expressly or impliedly asked consent to
12
enter, nor that Shaibu expressly granted or refused entry.
13
regard, the Shaibu Court noted that it is one thing to infer consent
14
from actions responding to a police.
15
the police walking into a person’s home without stopping at the door
16
to ask permission.
17
Shaibu, supra,
goes on to state, that there is no
In this
It is quite another to sanction
Thus, for the above stated reasons the facts of Shaibu, supra,
18
are clearly distinguishable from Griffin, supra, and thus, in light of
19
the foregoing argument where the facts and holding of Impink, supra,
20
the facts of Harrington, supra, and the facts of Griffin, supra, are
21
demonstrably distinct from the Undisputed Facts in Petitioner’s case,
22
the Appellate Court and the Attorney General have wholly failed to
23
establish why, in fact, the decision in Shaibu, supra, should not have
24
been controlling in Petitioner’s case.
25
In the face of the true facts in Shaibu, supra, and the fact that
26
27
28
Amended Reply to Answer & Amended P&A’s in Support of Petitioner’s Reply to Answer to Petition
for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Robert Reeves Blakewood v. James D. Hartley, Warden, Case No. 5:11-cv00142-LHK
17
1
Harrington, supra, and Griffin, supra, and the applicable facts and
2
holding of Impink, supra, are distinguishable from the Undisputed
3
Facts of Petitioner’s case, at the bottom of page 4 and the top of
4
page 5 of the Attorney General’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities
5
in support of their answer to the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus,
6
the Attorney General again fails to recognize the true factual and
7
legal applicability of Shaibu, supra, as well as the clear
8
applicability of Bumper, supra,
9
supra.
Silverman, supra, and Wong Sun,
10
In this regard, a close scrutiny of the Attorney General’s
11
argument demonstrates that they again fail to note the true facts of
12
Shaibu, supra, and its underlying decision, based thereon, as well as
13
the Undisputed Facts of Petitioner’s case, which are closely the same
14
as the true facts of Shaibu, supra, where that Court also found that
15
Shaibu, when retreating into his apartment, had left his door open,
16
just as the Petitioner did under the Undisputed Facts of his case.
17
Also, the Attorney General’s argument that the Petitioner
18
cooperated in getting Alford wholly ignores the impact of the U. S.
19
Supreme Court case of Bumper, supra.
20
Further, by arguing that Petitioner cooperated by responding to
21
Officer Shoemaker’s questions, the Attorney General ignores that under
22
the Undisputed Facts, as argued in his Petition, when coupled with the
23
clear fact that Shoemaker had already accomplished her unrequested and
24
thus, unlawful entry into Petitioner’s residence, the mere fact that
25
the Petitioner assertedly, thereafter cooperated, cannot form a basis
26
27
28
Amended Reply to Answer & Amended P&A’s in Support of Petitioner’s Reply to Answer to Petition
for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Robert Reeves Blakewood v. James D. Hartley, Warden, Case No. 5:11-cv00142-LHK
18
1
for finding implied consent pursuant to Wong Sun, supra, for the
2
reasons stated in the Petitioner’s initial Petition for Habeas relief.
3
Also, pursuant to the authority of Wong Sun, supra, the Attorney
4
General’s argument that after Shoemaker’s entry into Petitioner’s
5
home, which has clearly been shown to be unlawful, the mere fact that
6
the Petitioner did not, thereafter object to Shoemaker’s presence does
7
not, in any way, absolve Shoemaker from her initial, unrequested,
8
warrantless entry into the sanctity of Petitioner’s home, where, under
9
the overall circumstances of Petitioner’s case, Shoemaker’s initial
10
entry, her initial questioning and her continued presence was
11
unjustified under the clear cut authority of Bumper, supra,
12
Silverman, supra, and Wong Sun, supra.
13
Thus, the Trial Judge did err in finding a “consensual encounter”
14
at defendant’s home and consequently, he erred when denying
15
Petitioner’s Motion to Suppress evidence.
16
The Petitioner has already emphasized why, pursuant to the
17
established authority of Herrera, supra, Gamble, supra, and the
18
authority of Williams v. Taylor, supra, as well as the authority of 28
19
U.S.C. §2254(d)(1) and 28 U.S.C. §(d)(2), the Trial Judge, not only
20
willfully failed to colorably apply United States Supreme Court
21
precedent on point, as urged by the Petitioner, in connection with the
22
Undisputed Facts of Petitioner’s case, but also emphasized that the
23
Trial Judge failed to carefully analyze the facts of Petitioner’s case
24
and thus, based his decision on an unreasonable determination of those
25
facts and consequently, pursuant to the authority with which the
26
Attorney General agrees, as provided by Williams, supra, and 28 U.S.C.
27
Amended Reply to Answer & Amended P&A’s in Support of Petitioner’s Reply to Answer to Petition
for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Robert Reeves Blakewood v. James D. Hartley, Warden, Case No. 5:11-cv00142-LHK
28
19
1
§2254(d)(2), and thus, based on the Trial Judge’s failures as noted
2
immediately herein above, this Petitioner respectfully submits that he
3
was not provided a full and fair opportunity to argue his Fourth
4
Amendment claims as advanced by him at the Trial Court level.
5
Furthermore, with respect to this Petitioner’s close review of
6
the Attorney General’s attempts to adopt and justify the Appellate
7
Court’s conclusion that Shaibu, supra is not controlling, based on a
8
close review and scrutiny of Shaibu, supra, it is clear, as urged
9
herein, that both the Appellate Court and the Attorney General, when
10
arguing that Shaibu, supra, should not be controlling, based their
11
opinion, in part, on an unreasonable determination of the true facts
12
of Shaibu, supra, in outright violation of Williams v. Taylor, supra,
13
and 28 U.S.C. §2254 (d)(2), to which the Attorney General has earlier
14
conceded can be a basis for a reviewing Court’s issuance of a Writ of
15
Habeas Corpus.
16
Furthermore, both the Appellate Court and the Attorney General
17
fail to fully appreciate the principle holding of Schneckloth v.
18
Bustamonte (1973) 412 U.S. 218, which wholly concurs with the
19
underlying holding of Shaibu, supra, that a citizen must have been
20
found to express voluntary consent, whether express or implied before
21
a search or entry can be legally justified.
22
additional aspect of Schneckloth, supra, regarding the fact that the
23
government need not show the citizen’s knowledge of his right to
24
refuse consent, in no way, was advanced by this Petitioner, at any
25
stage of the proceedings against him.
In this regard, the
26
27
28
Amended Reply to Answer & Amended P&A’s in Support of Petitioner’s Reply to Answer to Petition
for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Robert Reeves Blakewood v. James D. Hartley, Warden, Case No. 5:11-cv00142-LHK
20
1
Consequently, for both the Appellate Court and the Attorney
2
General to raise this second aspect of Schneckloth, supra, which in no
3
way played a role in the Petitioner’s argument of his Fourth Amendment
4
claims, the Appellate Court as well as the Attorney General have again
5
failed to carefully analyze the facts of Petitioner’s case pursuant to
6
Williams v. Taylor, supra and 28 U.S.C. §2254(d)(2).
7
Thus, when this Court considers, as urged herein, the impact of
8
the Appellate Court’s failure to comply with Williams, supra, and 28
9
U.S.C. §2254(d)(2), in addition to the Appellate Court’s willful
10
failure and refusal to colorably apply U.S. Supreme Court precedent,
11
on point, as urged by the Petitioner when relying on Silverman, supra,
12
Bumper, supra and Wong Sun, supra, as those cases pertain to the
13
Undisputed Facts of Petitioner’s case, it is respectfully submitted
14
that the Petitioner has established, at the Appellate Court level, he
15
did not receive a full and fair opportunity to argue his Fourth
16
Amendment claims which he advanced pursuant to the Stone bar authority
17
exceptions, to which the Attorney General has agreed can form a basis
18
for this Court’s ultimate grant of Petitioner’s Writ of Habeas Corpus.
19
Also, the California Supreme Court refused to consider the merits
20
of Petitioner’s Fourth Amendment arguments which were, in large part,
21
similar to his overall arguments which he advanced in the Trial Court
22
and at the Appellate Court. Thus, without undue elaboration, the
23
California Supreme Court wholly failed to provide Petitioner with a
24
full and fair opportunity to advance his Fourth Amendment claims in
25
that Court, for the reasons stated herein with respect to the
26
27
28
Amended Reply to Answer & Amended P&A’s in Support of Petitioner’s Reply to Answer to Petition
for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Robert Reeves Blakewood v. James D. Hartley, Warden, Case No. 5:11-cv00142-LHK
21
1
arguments which the Petitioner attempted to raise in the Trial Court
2
and Appellate Court.
3
Thus, even though the Petitioner believes he has persuasively
4
argued that he is entitled to this Court’s grant of his Writ of Habeas
5
Corpus, for the reasons stated in the Petition and the reasons stated
6
herein, this Petitioner feels compelled to address two additional
7
arguments raised in the Attorney General’s answer.
8
First, apparently pursuant to Ortiz-Sandoval v. Gomez 81 F.3d at
9
899, the Attorney General urges that the Petitioner may not argue why
10
he believes the State Courts decisions were incorrectly decided and
11
where, in this regard, the Attorney General notes that this Petitioner
12
has merely listed all the ways he disagrees with the State Court
13
rulings.
14
The fact of the matter is, Petitioner is not seeking Habeas
15
relief based on why he disagrees with the State Courts rulings, but
16
instead, based on the well reasoned opinions of the U.S. Supreme Court
17
justices involved in the majority decisions of Silverman, supra,
18
Bumper, supra and Wong Sun, supra.
19
In this respect, Petitioner submits that the majority of the
20
justices involved in the above three noted Supreme Court decisions
21
would wholeheartedly disagree with the State Court’s overall failure
22
to properly interpret and apply Fourth Amendment law, on point, as
23
enunciated in Silverman, supra, Bumper, supra and Wong Sun, supra.
24
Secondly, the Attorney General, in the face of their recognition
25
of the established exceptions to the Stone bar, nevertheless allude to
26
the curious standard of Mack v. Cupp 564 F.2d at 901, where the
27
Amended Reply to Answer & Amended P&A’s in Support of Petitioner’s Reply to Answer to Petition
for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Robert Reeves Blakewood v. James D. Hartley, Warden, Case No. 5:11-cv00142-LHK
28
22
1
Attorney General seems to ignore the Stone bar exception authorities
2
as noted in Herrera, supra and Gamble, supra, by begging the Court to
3
adopt a novel standard that “as long as the State procedures were
4
fair,” somehow this reviewing Court should find that the Petitioner
5
received a full and fair opportunity to argue his Fourth Amendment
6
claims in the State Courts.
7
With all due respect to the Attorney General, this Petitioner has
8
not found any established authority to substantiate the Attorney
9
General’s claim that the decision in Mack, supra, in fact, in any way
10
supplants the well established authority, to which the Attorney
11
General has previously conceded as embodied in Herrera, supra, Gamble,
12
supra, and 28 U.S.C. §2254(d)(1) and 28 U.S.C. §2254(d)(2).
13
Thus, for each of the above stated reasons, this Petitioner
14
respectfully requests that his Petition for Habeas Corpus relief be
15
granted.
16
CONCLUSION
17
Again, for the above stated reasons, the Petitioner requests that
18
this Court grant his Petition for Habeas Corpus relief.
19
Respectfully submitted,
20
21
22
23
Date: May ___, 2012
________________________________
Robert Bratberg
Attorney for Petitioner
24
25
26
27
28
Amended Reply to Answer & Amended P&A’s in Support of Petitioner’s Reply to Answer to Petition
for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Robert Reeves Blakewood v. James D. Hartley, Warden, Case No. 5:11-cv00142-LHK
23
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
Amended Reply to Answer & Amended P&A’s in Support of Petitioner’s Reply to Answer to Petition
for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Robert Reeves Blakewood v. James D. Hartley, Warden, Case No. 5:11-cv00142-LHK
24
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?