Robles v. Faneuff et al
Filing
12
RULING DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS. The petition for habeas corpus (Doc. # 1 ) is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to exhaust state court remedies. If Robles properly exhausts his claims and wishes to re-file a petition for f ederal habeas corpus relief, he should be prepared to show that his petition has been timely filed within one year of his state court convictions' becoming final (28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)) and, if not, why the statute of limitations should be equitably tolled in his favor. See Walker v. Connecticut Superior Court, 2015 WL 3970886, at *3 (D. Conn. 2015). The motion to appoint counsel (Doc. # 3 ) is DENIED as moot. Because Robles has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, see 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), no certificate of appealability shall enter. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of the respondents and to close this case. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 12/27/2016. (Gruber, Sarah)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
ROLANDO ROBLES,
Petitioner,
v.
No. 3:16-cv-1208 (JAM)
W. FANEUFF, et al.,
Respondents.
RULING DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
Petitioner Rolando Robles has filed this pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2254. He challenges his 2007 convictions for kidnapping, attempted kidnapping, and
sexual assault. For the reasons set forth below, I will dismiss the petition on the ground that he has
not fully exhausted available state remedies.
BACKGROUND
On August 29, 2007, Robles pleaded guilty in state court under the Alford doctrine to one
count of kidnapping in the first degree in violation of Connecticut General Statutes § 53a92(a)(2)(A); one count of sexual assault in the fourth degree in violation of Connecticut General
Statutes § 53a-73a(a)(2); and one count of attempt to commit kidnapping in the first degree in
violation of Connecticut General Statutes §§ 53a-92(a)(2)(A) and 53a-49. See Doc. #11 at 13–47. On
October 17, 2007, the trial court judge sentenced Robles to fifteen years of imprisonment, execution
suspended after time served, followed by twenty years of probation. See id. at 48–78. Robles did not
challenge his convictions on direct appeal. See Doc. #1 at 3. Robles did, however, eventually file
several post-conviction motions for relief.
On July 22, 2011, Robles filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence in state court. The
motion was denied on November 10, 2011. See State v. Robles, 169 Conn. App. 127, 2016 WL
6081826 (2016) (reviewing history of filings). It does not appear that Robles appealed the denial of
this first motion to correct.
On January 11, 2012, Robles filed a habeas corpus petition in state court. See Robles v.
Warden, State Prison, TSR-CV12-4004528-S (Conn. Super. Ct. 2012).1 He argued that his
convictions were obtained in violation of his right to due process, because he was convicted of
kidnapping based on conduct that the Connecticut Supreme Court later determined did not constitute
kidnapping. See State v. Salamon, 287 Conn. 509, 546–48 (2008) (holding that a defendant cannot be
convicted of kidnapping, in conjunction with another crime, if the confinement or movement is
merely incidental to the commission of the other crime). He also raised a claim of ineffective
assistance of counsel. Following an evidentiary hearing, the habeas court dismissed his petition on
December 16, 2014, concluding that his convictions were not invalid under Salamon and that his trial
counsel had not rendered constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel. See Robles v. Warden,
State Prison, 2014 WL 7647800 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2014).
On February 9, 2015, Robles appealed the denial of his state habeas petition to the
Connecticut Appellate Court. See Robles v. Comm’r of Corr., AC 37686 (Conn. App. Ct. 2015).2 But
instead of pursuing the same claims that he had pressed before the state habeas trial court, Robles
argued instead that his Alford pleas were not made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. On
December 20, 2016, the Appellate Court ruled that it could not review Robles’ appeal, because the
claim he raised in his appeal was not distinctly raised in the habeas trial court. See Robles v. Comm’r
of Corr., 169 Conn. App. 751, 2016 WL 7211161 (2016). On December 27, 2016, Robles filed a
motion for reconsideration en banc of the Appellate Court’s decision, which is pending.
1
The court docket for this state habeas petition may be found at www.jud.ct.gov, under Civil/Family/Housing
Case Look-up, Docket Number Search, TSR-CV-12-4004528-S (last visited Dec. 22, 2016).
2
The court docket for the appeal of the denial of the state habeas petition may be found at www.jud.ct.gov,
2
In the meantime, apart from his effort to seek habeas corpus relief, Robles also pursued a
renewed motion to correct an illegal sentence. On September 3, 2014, while his habeas petition was
pending at the state trial court, Robles filed a second motion to vacate or correct an illegal sentence
or, in the alternative, for a writ of error coram nobis. See State v. Robles, 169 Conn. App. 127, 2016
WL 6081826, at *2. He argued that the Salamon decision rendered his sentence unconstitutional. On
March 19, 2015, the trial court dismissed Robles’s motion to correct an illegal sentence, holding that
because Robles was essentially challenging the validity of his conviction, the court lacked subject
matter jurisdiction over the motion, because the motion sought to challenge his convictions rather
than his sentence. See id. The court also dismissed the petition for a writ of error coram nobis, due to
the untimely filing of the petition. See id.
On April 30, 2015, Robles appealed the dismissal of his motion to correct an illegal sentence
to the Connecticut Appellate Court. See State v. Robles, AC 37881 (Conn. App. Ct. 2015).3 On
October 25, 2016, the Appellate Court affirmed the judgment, ruling in relevant part that “a motion to
correct an illegal sentence is not the proper procedural path for the defendant in this case to contest
the validity of his guilty pleas following the change to our kidnapping laws.” See State v. Robles, 169
Conn. App. 127, 2016 WL 6081826, at *4. On November 23, 2016, Robles filed a petition for
certification in the Connecticut Supreme Court, on which the Connecticut Supreme Court has not yet
acted.
On July 18, 2016, Robles filed the instant petition for federal habeas corpus relief pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2254. His petition seeks relief under Salamon and objects to what he claims is the state
courts’ refusal to consider his claim. Doc. #1 at 9–15.
under Supreme and Appellate Court Case Look-up, By Docket Number, AC 37686 (last visited Dec. 22, 2016).
3
The court docket for the appeal of the denial of the motion to correct or for a writ of error coram nobis may be
found at www.jud.ct.gov, under Supreme and Appellate Court Case Look-up, By Docket Number, AC 37881 (last visited
3
DISCUSSION
A federal court “shall entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person
in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in
violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). With
certain exceptions, a prerequisite to habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is that a petitioner
have previously presented and fully exhausted his federal claims in the state courts. Id.,
§ 2254(b)(1)(A); Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170, 181 (2011). “This requires that the prisoner
fairly present his constitutional claim to the state courts, which he accomplishes by presenting the
essential factual and legal premises of his federal constitutional claim to the highest state court
capable of reviewing it.” Jackson v. Conway, 763 F.3d 115, 133 (2d Cir. 2014). As the Second
Circuit has explained, the exhaustion rule “ensur[es] that state courts receive a legitimate opportunity
to pass on a petitioner’s federal claims and that federal courts respect the state courts’ ability to
correct their own mistakes.” Galdamez v. Keane, 394 F.3d 68, 72–74 (2d Cir. 2005) (Sotomayor, J.).
A failure to exhaust may be excused if “there is no opportunity to obtain redress in state court
or if the corrective process is so clearly deficient to render futile any effort to obtain relief.”
Duckworth v. Serrano, 454 U.S. 1, 3 (1981) (per curiam). A petitioner, however, may not simply
wait until appellate remedies are no longer available and then argue that the claim is exhausted. See
Galdamez, 394 F.3d at 73–74.
Robles raises four grounds for relief in his federal habeas petition. The first two grounds
relate to his argument that his convictions are invalid pursuant to the Connecticut Supreme Court’s
decision in State v. Salamon. In ground three, Robles contends that he has been denied his right to
access state court to challenge his convictions and sentence. In ground four, Robles alleges violations
Dec. 22, 2016).
4
of his rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S.
Constitution.
In his petition, Robles explicitly concedes that he did not raise any of these four claims in
state court proceedings. See Doc. #1 at 10, 12, 14, 16 (answering “no” to the question “Did you raise
this issue through a post-conviction motion or petition for habeas corpus in a state trial court?” for
each of the four grounds). And even if some of these claims are the same as or do overlap with the
claims he raised in his state court post-conviction proceedings, it is indisputable that he has not
exhausted review of any of these claims on their merits all the way up through the Connecticut
Supreme Court.
Although Robles complains that the state courts have refused to consider his claims, I am not
persuaded. He filed a state habeas corpus petition raising his challenge under Salamon but then, after
losing on the merits at the trial court level, he opted to pursue a different legal claim on appeal.
Similarly, he sought to pursue his Salamon claim by means of a motion to correct his sentence,
despite the fact that his claim was in reality a challenge to the legality of his conviction. He has yet to
exhaust his Salamon claim in any form in the Connecticut Supreme Court. In short, the Connecticut
state courts have not unjustifiably refused to entertain Robles’ claims, and Robles himself bears
responsibility for his failure to properly present and fully exhaust the merits of the claims for which
he now seeks relief.
CONCLUSION
The petition for habeas corpus (Doc. #1) is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to
exhaust state court remedies. If Robles properly exhausts his claims and wishes to re-file a petition
for federal habeas corpus relief, he should be prepared to show that his petition has been timely filed
within one year of his state court convictions’ becoming final (28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)) and, if not,
5
why the statute of limitations should be equitably tolled in his favor. See Walker v. Connecticut
Superior Court, 2015 WL 3970886, at *3 (D. Conn. 2015). The motion to appoint counsel (Doc. #3)
is DENIED as moot. Because Robles has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional
right, see 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), no certificate of appealability shall enter. The Clerk is directed to enter
judgment in favor of the respondents and to close this case.
It is so ordered.
Dated at New Haven, Connecticut this 27th day of December 2016.
/s/ Jeffrey Alker Meyer
Jeffrey Alker Meyer
United States District Judge
6
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?