Taylor v. Carlin

Filing 17

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER Respondent's Motion for Summary Dismissal (Dkt. 12 ) is GRANTED, and the Petition (Dkt. 1 ) is DISMISSED with prejudice. The Court does not find its resolution of this habeas matter to be reasonably debatable, and a certificate of appealability will not issue. Signed by Judge Ronald E. Bush. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (jp)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

BRIAN KENNETH TAYLOR,
Case No. 3:15-cv-00297-REB
Petitioner,
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER

v.
TEREMA CARLIN,
Respondent.

Pending before the Court is Petitioner Brian Kenneth Taylor’s Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus. (Dkt. 1.) Respondent has filed a Motion for Summary Dismissal, arguing
that the only claim in the Petition is procedurally defaulted. (Dkt. 12.) The Motion is now
ripe for adjudication. (Dkt. 14, 16.)
The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge
to conduct all proceedings in this case in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). (Dkt. 10.)
Having carefully reviewed the record, including the state court record, the Court finds
that the parties have adequately presented the facts and legal arguments in the briefs and
record and that oral argument is unnecessary. See D. Idaho L. Civ. R. 7.1(d).
Accordingly, the Court enters the following Order granting Respondent’s Motion and
dismissing this case with prejudice.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 1

BACKGROUND
The facts underlying Petitioner’s conviction are set forth clearly and accurately in
State v. Taylor, Docket No. 41888, Op. 399 (Idaho Ct. App. March 9, 2015)
(unpublished), which is contained in the record at State’s Lodging B-4. The facts will not
be repeated here except as necessary to explain the Court’s decision.
Petitioner entered a conditional guilty plea in the Second Judicial District in Latah
County, Idaho, to four counts of sexual abuse of child under the age of sixteen, four
counts of lewd conduct with a child under the age of sixteen, and one count of sexual
exploitation of a child, in violation of Idaho Code §§ 18-1506(1), 18-1508, and 181507(2)(b). (State’s Lodging B-4 at 1.) Petitioner received a unified sentence of life
imprisonment with 25 years fixed. (Id. at 7.)
Petitioner appealed, arguing, in relevant part, that the trial court should have
granted his motion to suppress camera memory cards that were found in Petitioner’s
home. Petitioner claimed that, during the search, the police coerced him into providing
statements disclosing the location of the memory cards. (State’s Lodging B-2.) The Idaho
Court of Appeals affirmed. (State’s Lodging B-4.) Petitioner did not file a petition for
review with the Idaho Supreme Court, and the Idaho Court of Appeals issued its
remittitur. (State’s Lodging B-5.)
In the instant federal habeas corpus petition, Petitioner asserts a single claim—that
the trial court should have granted his motion to suppress evidence because Petitioner’s
statements as to where to find the memory cards were involuntary in violation of the Fifth
Amendment. (Dkt. 1 at 6-9.)
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 2

DISCUSSION
In the Motion for Summary Dismissal, Respondent argues that Petitioner’s claim
is procedurally defaulted.
1.

Standards of Law
Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases authorizes the Court to summarily

dismiss a petition for writ of habeas corpus when “it plainly appears from the face of the
petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district
court.” The Court may also take judicial notice of relevant state court records in
determining whether to dismiss a petition.1 Fed. R. Evid. 201(b); Dawson v Mahoney,
451 F.3d 550, 551 (9th Cir. 2006). Where appropriate, a respondent may file a motion for
summary dismissal, rather than an answer. White v. Lewis, 874 F.2d 599, 602 (9th Cir.
1989).
A habeas petitioner must exhaust his or her remedies in the state courts before a
federal court can grant relief on constitutional claims. O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S.
838, 842 (1999). To do so, the petitioner must invoke one complete round of the state’s
established appellate review process, fairly presenting all constitutional claims to the state
courts so that they have a full and fair opportunity to correct alleged constitutional errors
at each level of appellate review. Id. at 845. “Fair presentation” requires a petitioner to
describe both the operative facts and the legal theories upon which the federal claim is
based. Gray v. Netherland, 518 U.S. 152, 162-63 (1996).

The Court takes judicial notice of the records from Petitioner’s state court proceedings, which
have been lodged by Respondent. (Dkt. 11, 15.)
1

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 3

In a state that has the possibility of discretionary review in the highest appellate
court, like Idaho, the petitioner must have presented all of his federal claims at least in a
petition seeking review before that court. O’Sullivan, 526 U.S. at 847. In Idaho, all
appeals from district courts initially go to the Idaho Supreme Court. That court then
assigns certain cases to the Idaho Court of Appeals, which is required to decide all such
assigned cases. See Idaho App. R. 108. Generally, cases that are assigned to the court of
appeals are those “involv[ing] existing legal principles” as opposed to cases of first
impression. Id. Once the Idaho Court of Appeals decides an assigned case, then the losing
party may file a petition for review with the Idaho Supreme Court, which then determines
whether to review the decision of the Idaho Court of Appeals. Idaho App. R. 118. A
petition for review is a required step in the exhaustion process in Idaho. O’Sullivan, 526
U.S. at 847.
When a habeas petitioner has not fairly presented a constitutional claim to the
highest state court, and it is clear that the state court would now refuse to consider it
because of the state’s procedural rules, the claim is said to be procedurally defaulted.
Gray, 518 U.S. at 161-62. Procedurally defaulted claims include those within the
following circumstances: (1) when a petitioner has completely failed to raise a claim
before the Idaho courts; (2) when a petitioner has raised a claim, but has failed to fully
and fairly present it as a federal claim to the Idaho courts; and (3) when the Idaho courts
have rejected a claim on an adequate and independent state procedural ground. Id.;
Baldwin v. Reese, 541 U.S. 27, 32 (2004); Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 750
(1991).
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 4

If a petitioner’s claim is procedurally defaulted, a federal district court cannot hear
the merits of the claim unless the petitioner meets one of two exceptions: (1) a showing
of adequate legal cause for the default and prejudice arising from the default, or (2) a
showing of actual innocence, which means that a miscarriage of justice will occur if the
constitutional claim is not heard in federal court. Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478, 488
(1986); Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 329 (1995). Neither an assertion of cause and
prejudice nor an assertion of actual innocence under Schlup is an independent
constitutional claim. Rather, these are federal procedural arguments that, if sufficiently
established by the petitioner, allow a federal court to consider the merits of an otherwise
procedurally-defaulted constitutional claim.
2.

Petitioner’s Claim Is Procedurally Defaulted, and He Does Not Argue that
Cause and Prejudice or Actual Innocence Excuses the Default
The Idaho Court of Appeals rejected Petitioner’s claim that his statements to

police were involuntary. (State’s Lodging B-4 at 4-6.) Petitioner did not file a petition for
review with the Idaho Supreme Court, which was a required step in order to exhaust his
claim. See O’Sullivan, 526 U.S. at 847. Petitioner asserts that the Idaho Supreme Court
did, in fact, decide his appeal. (Dkt. 14.) However, a review of the record establishes that
Petitioner is incorrect.
After Petitioner filed his direct appeal and once briefing was completed, the Idaho
Supreme Court assigned the case to the Idaho Court of Appeals for resolution pursuant to
Idaho Appellate Rule 108. (State’s Lodging B-6.) The parties stipulated to submission
without oral argument (State’s Lodging B-7), and the court of appeals affirmed

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 5

Petitioner’s convictions and sentences. The next step in order to exhaust his Fifth
Amendment claim would have been to petition the Idaho Supreme Court for review.
Because Petitioner did not do so, his claim is procedurally defaulted.
Petitioner does not contend that cause and prejudice or actual innocence excuses
the procedural default of his habeas claim. Because Petitioner has not established an
excuse for the default, the Court must dismiss this case with prejudice.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED:
1.

Respondent’s Motion for Summary Dismissal (Dkt. 12) is GRANTED, and
the Petition (Dkt. 1) is DISMISSED with prejudice.

2.

The Court does not find its resolution of this habeas matter to be reasonably
debatable, and a certificate of appealability will not issue. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c); Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. If
Petitioner wishes to appeal, he must file a timely notice of appeal with the
Clerk of Court. Petitioner may seek a certificate of appealability from the
Ninth Circuit by filing a request in that court.

DATED: August 8, 2016

Honorable Ronald E. Bush
United States Magistrate Judge

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 6