Carter v. Ylst

Filing 150

ORDER Denying Petitioner's 112 Motion for Evidentiary Hearing without Prejudice. Signed by Judge Roger T. Benitez on 8/12/2011. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(knh)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12

DEAN PHILLIP CARTER,

13

CASE No. 06cv1343-BEN (CAB)
DEATH PENALTY CASE

Petitioner,
vs.

14
15
16

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S
MOTION FOR EVIDENTIARY
HEARING WITHOUT PREJUDICE
[Doc. No. 112]

MICHAEL MARTEL, Acting Warden of the
California State Prison at San Quentin,

17

Respondent.

18
19
20

In accordance with the deadlines set forth in the Court’s Order of November 8, 2010, Petitioner

21

filed a Motion for Evidentiary Hearing on December 22, 2010. On April 4, 2011, the United States

22

Supreme Court issued a decision in Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. ___, 131 S. Ct. 1388 (2011), in which

23

the Court held that a federal court’s “review under § 2254(d)(1) is limited to the record that was before

24

the state court that adjudicated the claim on the merits.” Id. at 1398.
For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s Motion for Evidentiary Hearing

25
26

without prejudice as premature in light of Pinholster.

27

///

28

///

-1-

06cv1343

1

I. BACKGROUND

2

Petitioner was convicted in the San Diego County Superior Court on May 22, 1991, of one count

3

of first degree murder, two counts of robbery, one count of burglary, one count of forcible rape, and one

4

count of forcible oral copulation. People v. Carter, 36 Cal.4th 1215, 1220 (2005). The jury also found

5

true the special circumstance allegations that the murder was committed while lying in wait, that the

6

murder was committed while Petitioner was engaged in the commission or attempted commission of a

7

robbery, that the murder was committed while Petitioner was engaged in the commission or attempted

8

commission of a burglary, and that Petitioner had previously been convicted of three counts of murder

9

in Los Angeles County Superior Court. Id. at 1221. At the conclusion of the penalty phase, the jury

10

returned a verdict of death and the court entered judgment in accordance therewith. Id. The sentence

11

was upheld on appeal to the California Supreme Court. Id. The California Supreme Court denied

12

Petitioner’s state habeas petition on June 28, 2006, and amended the order denying the petition on

13

September 13, 2006.

14

Petitioner initiated his federal habeas action on June 29, 2006, by filing a motion for appointment

15

of counsel pursuant to Local Civil Rule HC.3(d)(1). The Court filed an order appointing counsel on

16

September 22, 2006. On December 6, 2006, Petitioner filed a Protective Petition, and on June 20, 2007,

17

filed a mixed Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus with this Court, asserting 17 claims for relief, with

18

eight claims comprised of numerous sub-claims. On July 6, 2007, Petitioner and Respondent filed a

19

Joint Stipulation and Motion to Stay Federal Proceedings pending the resolution of a state exhaustion

20

petition, and on July 13, 2007, the Court granted the motion.

21

On June 22, 2007, Petitioner filed a second state habeas petition, containing the unexhausted

22

claims, and filed a Reply on April 23, 2009. Petitioner also filed a third state habeas petition on

23

February 16, 2010, based on newly discovered evidence, and filed a Reply on May 14, 2010. The second

24

and third state habeas petitions were both denied by the California Supreme Court on June 17, 2010

25

without an evidentiary hearing. All but two claims1 were adjudicated on the merits.

26

On July 12, 2010, Petitioner filed a Second Amended Petition in this Court. On October 18,

27
1

28

Claims 5 and 16 subpart C were denied as “premature without prejudice to renewal after an execution
date is set. (People v. Abilez (2007) 41 Cal.4th 472, 536; People v. Lawley (2002) 27 Cal.4th 102, 169, fn. 25.)”
(Supp. Lodgment No. 4, Doc. No. 99, case no. S153780.)

-2-

06cv1343

1

2010, Respondent filed an Answer, and on December 8, 2010, Petitioner filed a Traverse. Pursuant to

2

the Court’s order of November 8, 2010 that any motion was to be filed on or before December 23, 2010,

3

Petitioner filed the instant Motion for Evidentiary Hearing on December 22, 2010. On January 11, 2011,

4

Respondent filed an Opposition, and on January 27, 2011, Petitioner filed a Reply.

5

II. FEDERAL HABEAS REVIEW AND PINHOLSTER

6

In order to obtain federal habeas relief on a claim adjudicated on the merits by a state court, a

7

petitioner must demonstrate that the state court’s adjudication “resulted in a decision that was contrary

8

to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, as determined by the

9

United States Supreme Court,” or “resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable

10

determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.” 28 U.S.C.

11

§ 2254 (d)(1), (d)(2).

12

On April 4, 2011, the United States Supreme Court issued a decision in Cullen v. Pinholster, in

13

which it held that, for claims previously decided on the merits by a state court, a federal court’s “review

14

under § 2254(d)(1) is limited to the record that was before the state court that adjudicated the claim on

15

the merits.” 131 S.Ct. at 1398. The Supreme Court reaffirmed that review under section 2254(d)(2) was

16

similarly limited to evidence adduced in the state court proceedings. Id. at 1400 n.7. The Court noted

17

that “[a]lthough state prisoners may sometimes submit new evidence in federal court, AEDPA’s

18

statutory scheme is designed to strongly discourage them from doing so.” Id. at 1401.

19

The Court stated that a prior decision in Schriro v. Landrigan, 550 U.S. 465 (2007), was

20

consistent with Pinholster, reasoning that “[b]ecause the deferential standards prescribed by § 2254

21

control whether to grant habeas relief, a federal court must take into account those standards in deciding

22

whether an evidentiary hearing is appropriate,” and thus “when the state-court record ‘precludes habeas

23

relief’ under the limitations of § 2254(d), a district court is ‘not required to hold an evidentiary hearing.’”

24

Pinholster, 131 S. Ct. at 1399, quoting Landrigan, 550 U.S. at 474.

25

Thus, pursuant to Pinholster, it does not serve the interests of judicial economy to hold an

26

evidentiary hearing, or decide whether an evidentiary hearing is warranted, prior to conducting a review

27

under section 2254(d).

28

///
-3-

06cv1343

1

III.CONCLUSION

2

Petitioner’s Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing [Doc. No. 112] is DENIED without prejudice

3

as premature to a decision as to whether any of the claims in the federal Petition survive section 2254(d)

4

review. In conducting the § 2254(d) review of Petitioner’s claims, the Court will consider the arguments

5

raised in the motion papers filed in support of, and in opposition to, the Motion for Evidentiary Hearing.

6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8

DATED: August 12, 2011

9
10

Hon. Roger T. Benitez
United States District Judge

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4-

06cv1343