Fuentes v. State of Washington

Filing 31

ORDER DENYING AMENDED PETITION UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2254 FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS. Petitioner's Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, ECF No. 8 , is DENIED. The Petition is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. A certificate of appealability will not be issued as there is no basis that this Court identifies for a valid appeal. This file is CLOSED. Signed by Senior Judge Rosanna Malouf Peterson. (CLP, Case Administrator)

Case 2:19-cv-00416-RMP

ECF No. 31

filed 11/18/21

PageID.311 Page 1 of 10

1
2

FILED IN THE
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

3

Nov 18, 2021
SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK

4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6
7
8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
NICHOLAS ANDRES FUENTES,
III,
Petitioner,

9
10

v.

11

NO: 2:19-CV-416-RMP
ORDER DENYING AMENDED
PETITION UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2254
FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

JAMES KEY,

12

Respondent.

13
14

BEFORE THE COURT is an Amended Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for

15

Writ of Habeas Corpus by Petitioner Nicholas A. Fuentes III. ECF No. 8. Mr.

16

Fuentes challenges his state court judgment entered for his conviction of assault in

17

the second degree. ECF No. 8 at 1.

18

Petitioner asserts that he is entitled to habeas relief based on a violation of his

19

due process rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment of the United States

20

Constitution. Having considered the petition, Respondent James Key’s Answer and

21
ORDER DENYING AMENDED PETIION UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2254 FOR WRIT
OF HABEAS CORPUS ~ 1

Case 2:19-cv-00416-RMP

ECF No. 31

filed 11/18/21

PageID.312 Page 2 of 10

1

Memorandum of Authorities, the state court record, Petitioner’s reply, as well as the

2

relevant law, the Court is fully informed.
BACKGROUND

3
4

Petitioner Nicholas Fuentes is currently in Washington State custody. ECF

5

Nos. 8 at 1, 12 at 1. He is serving a 72-month sentence, as the result of an August

6

22, 2017, jury conviction from Spokane County Superior Court for second-degree

7

assault. ECF No. 13-1 at 2, 7.

8

A.

9

Statement of Facts
The Court relies on the factual history provided by the Washington State

10

Court of Appeals for Mr. Fuentes’s direct appeal. See State v. Fuentes, No. 35726-

11

1-III, 2019 WL 2126830 (Wash. Ct. App. May 9, 2019); see also ECF No. 8 at 16–

12

21. In March 2017, a gas station clerk observed Mr. Fuentes attempting to steal a

13

beer can from the gas station convenience store. ECF No. 8 at 16. The clerk

14

confronted Mr. Fuentes, who became irate and began physically attacking the clerk.

15

Id. During the altercation, Mr. Fuentes broke one of the clerk’s fingers before

16

fleeing the store. Id. A customer pumping gas, Bruce Rhimer, observed the incident

17

and subsequently called 911. Id. at 17.

18

B.

Procedural History

19

The State charged Mr. Fuentes with attempted first-degree robbery and

20

second-degree assault. Id. at 17. Trial was scheduled to begin on Monday July 17,

21

2017, in Spokane County Superior Court. Id. at 17; ECF No. 13-1 at 2. A few days
ORDER DENYING AMENDED PETIION UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2254 FOR WRIT
OF HABEAS CORPUS ~ 2

Case 2:19-cv-00416-RMP

ECF No. 31

filed 11/18/21

PageID.313 Page 3 of 10

1

before trial, the State disclosed that it planned to call Mr. Rhimer as a witness. Mr.

2

Rhimer’s identity was disclosed in the 911 records, but the State had not previously

3

indicated that he would testify at trial. ECF No. 8 at 17.

4

The State’s last-minute disclosure prompted Mr. Fuentes to make an oral

5

motion for dismissal under Washington State Criminal Court Rule (“CrR”) 8.3(b) or,

6

in the alternative, a continuance. Id. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss,

7

but the court granted a short continuance. Id. During trial, the court dismissed the

8

charge of attempted first-degree robbery for insufficient evidence. Id. at 18. The

9

jury convicted Mr. Fuentes of assault in the second degree, and the court

10

subsequently sentenced him to 72 months of incarceration and 18 months of

11

community custody. Id.; ECF No. 13-1 at 2, 7–8.

12

Mr. Fuentes timely filed a direct appeal arguing that the State committed

13

governmental misconduct in violation of CrR 8.3(b) by waiting until the eve of trial

14

to give Defendant notice that the State intended to call a previously undisclosed

15

eyewitness to the alleged assault. ECF No. 13-1 at 66–67. He also filed a

16

supplemental brief, arguing that he was not required to pay certain legal financial

17

obligations (“LFOs”) in light of recent statutory changes. Id. at 94–95. On May 9,

18

2019, Division III of the Washington State Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment

19

and sentence but remanded for the trial court to strike the LFOs. Id. at 55; ECF No.

20

8 at 16.

21
ORDER DENYING AMENDED PETIION UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2254 FOR WRIT
OF HABEAS CORPUS ~ 3

Case 2:19-cv-00416-RMP

1
2

CrR 8.3(b) authorizes the trial court to dismiss an
action where there has been governmental misconduct.
Simple mismanagement by the State is sufficient to
constitute governmental misconduct.
Mr. Fuentes
unsuccessfully moved for dismissal under C[]rR 8.3 after
the State gave notice on the eve of trial it intended to call
the only eyewitness to the alleged scuffle. Is an issue of
substantial public interest presented entitling Mr. Fuentes
to reversal of his conviction when the court’s denial of the
CrR 8.3 motion prejudiced him, denying him a fair trial?

5
6
7

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

PageID.314 Page 4 of 10

framed the issue as follows:

4

9

filed 11/18/21

Mr. Fuentes sought review by the Washington State Supreme Court, where he

3

8

ECF No. 31

ECF No. 13-1 at 102.
Throughout the appellate proceedings, Mr. Fuentes did not assert that his
right to due process was violated under either the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendment
of the United States Constitution. Rather, in his briefing before both state appellate
courts, Mr. Fuentes argued that the trial court’s denial of his CrR 8.3 motion
prejudiced him and denied him a fair trial. ECF No. 8 at 25–26, 37. He did briefly
mention the “right to a fair trial” as recognized by the due process clause under the
Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments in his briefing before both courts. Id. at 27, 39
(citing Cone v. Bell, 556 U.S. 449, 551, 129 S. Ct. 1769, 173 L. Ed. 2d 701
(2009)).
The Washington State Supreme Court denied review on October 3, 2019,
and the mandate issued on October 15, 2019. Id. at 117–19; see also State v.
Fuentes, 193 Wash.2d 1040, 449 P.3d 666 (Wash. 2019). There is no evidence

ORDER DENYING AMENDED PETIION UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2254 FOR WRIT
OF HABEAS CORPUS ~ 4

Case 2:19-cv-00416-RMP

ECF No. 31

filed 11/18/21

PageID.315 Page 5 of 10

1

that Mr. Fuentes filed a motion for reconsideration in the Washington State Court

2

of Appeals. ECF No. 12 at 15. Nor did he seek a writ of certiorari in the United

3

States Supreme Court or pursue state postconviction relief. ECF No. 8 at 3.

4

On February 12, 2020, Mr. Fuentes filed this amended petition for habeas

5

corpus relief asserting one ground for relief based on an alleged violation of both

6

the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. See ECF

7

No. 8. 1
LEGAL STANDARD

8
9

A petition for writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a prisoner in state custody is

10

brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Relief under § 2254 is limited to “violation[s] of the

11

Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). The

12

Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”) governs the review of Mr.

13

Fuentes’s claim because he filed the petition after April 24, 1996. See Chein v.

14

Shumsky, 37 F.3d 978, 983 (9th Cir. 2004). Under AEDPA, a district court imposes

15

a “highly deferential” standard of review and gives state court decisions “the benefit

16
17
18
19

1

Mr. Fuentes first filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in December 2019,

asserting an additional ground for relief based on ineffective assistance of counsel.
See ECF No. 1 at 9–10. The Court determined it was unclear whether Petitioner
had exhausted the claim and ordered him to amend his petition “to clearly and

20

concisely present those grounds for federal habeas relief which have been

21

exhausted.” ECF No. 7 at 6.
ORDER DENYING AMENDED PETIION UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2254 FOR WRIT
OF HABEAS CORPUS ~ 5

Case 2:19-cv-00416-RMP

ECF No. 31

filed 11/18/21

PageID.316 Page 6 of 10

1

of the doubt.” Woodford v. Visciotti, 537 U.S. 19, 24, 123 S. Ct. 357, 154 L.Ed. 2d

2

279 (2002) (per curiam).

3

A federal court may not grant relief on any claim that was adjudicated on the

4

merits in State court proceedings unless the adjudication of the claim (1) “resulted in

5

a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly

6

established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States” or

7

(2) “resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the

8

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

9

2254(d). “[F]ederal habeas corpus relief does not lie for errors of state law.” Lewis

10

v. Jeffers, 497 U.S. 764, 780, 110 S. Ct. 3092, 111 L. Ed. 2d 606 (1990).

11

The petitioner “must show that the state court’s ruling on the claim being

12

presented in federal court was so lacking in justification that there was an error well

13

understood and comprehended in existing law beyond any possibility for fairminded

14

disagreement.” Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 103, 131 S. Ct. 770, 178 L. Ed.

15

2d 624 (2011). Under this standard, the “state court’s determination that a claim lacks

16

merit precludes federal habeas relief so long as ‘fairminded jurists could disagree’ on

17

the correctness of the state court’s decision.” Id. at 101 (citing Yarborough v.

18

Alvarado, 541 U.S. 652, 664, 124 S. Ct. 2140, 158 L. Ed. 2d 938 (2004)). The

19

petitioner bears the heavy burden to show that “there was no reasonable basis for the

20

state court to deny relief.” Harrington, 562 U.S. at 98.

21

/ / /
ORDER DENYING AMENDED PETIION UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2254 FOR WRIT
OF HABEAS CORPUS ~ 6

Case 2:19-cv-00416-RMP

ECF No. 31

filed 11/18/21

PageID.317 Page 7 of 10

DISCUSSION

1
2

A.

Timeliness

3

Respondent concedes that Mr. Fuentes’s petition is timely. ECF No. 12 at 5.

4

The Court also finds that Mr. Fuentes filed his federal petition within the applicable

5

statute of limitations.

6

B.

7

Mr. Fuentes’s sole claim for habeas corpus relief is that he was denied due

8

process in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States

9

Constitution. ECF No. 8 at 1. Respondent contends that Mr. Fuentes did not

10
11

Exhaustion of State Remedies

properly exhaust his claim for relief. ECF No. 12 at 11–16.
A petitioner must properly exhaust remedies available in state court before

12

seeking federal habeas relief. Baldwin v. Reese, 541 U.S. 27, 29, 124 S. Ct. 1347,

13

158 L. Ed. 2d 64 (2004); 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). To satisfy the exhaustion

14

requirement, a “federal claim must be fairly presented to the state courts.” Picard v.

15

Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 275, 92 S. Ct. 509, 30 L. Ed. 2d 438 (1971). Claims are

16

fairly presented where state courts are “alerted to the fact that the prisoners are

17

asserting claims under the United States Constitution” and given the “opportunity to

18

correct alleged violations of prisoners’ federal rights.” Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S.

19

364, 365–66, 115 S. Ct. 887, 130 L. Ed. 2d 865 (1995); see also Johnson v. Zenon,

20

88 F.3d 828, 830–31 (9th Cir. 1996) (holding that petitioner failed to first present his

21

habeas claim in state court where he asserted in state court that admission of prior
ORDER DENYING AMENDED PETIION UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2254 FOR WRIT
OF HABEAS CORPUS ~ 7

Case 2:19-cv-00416-RMP

ECF No. 31

filed 11/18/21

PageID.318 Page 8 of 10

1

act evidence was an “evidentiary error” that was not harmless under state law,

2

specifically). Claims for relief that have not been exhausted in state court are not

3

cognizable in a federal habeas corpus petition. James v. Borg, 24 F.3d 20, 24 (9th

4

Cir. 1994).

5

Upon reviewing the record, the Court agrees that Mr. Fuentes has not

6

exhausted the remedies available to him in state court with respect to his sole claim

7

for relief. On his direct appeal, Mr. Fuentes argued that the trial court erred by

8

failing to dismiss the charge against him under CrR 8.3(b). ECF Nos. 8 at 4, 25.

9

This rule provides for the dismissal of a criminal prosecution “due to arbitrary action

10
11

or governmental misconduct.” CrR 8.3(b).
Mr. Fuentes’s petition for review to the Washington State Supreme Court

12

asserted the same claim. Id. at 37. His briefing before both courts makes passing

13

reference to the right to a “fair trial” based on the due process clause of the Fifth and

14

Fourteenth Amendments. Id. at 27, 39 (citing Cone v. Bell, 556 U.S. 449, 551

15

(2009)). But his single citation to Cone was made in the context of asserting

16

violation of a state court rule regarding governmental misconduct, not a due process

17

violation under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Accordingly, the Court finds

18

that Mr. Fuentes failed to exhaust the present habeas claim in state court.

19

C.

20

A district court will not hold an evidentiary hearing on a claim that was not

21

Evidentiary Hearing

sufficiently developed in state court proceedings unless one of two exceptions
ORDER DENYING AMENDED PETIION UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2254 FOR WRIT
OF HABEAS CORPUS ~ 8

Case 2:19-cv-00416-RMP

ECF No. 31

filed 11/18/21

PageID.319 Page 9 of 10

1

applies. The first exception applies to an undeveloped claim that relies on “a new

2

rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the

3

Supreme Court” or “a factual predicate that could not have been previously

4

discovered through the exercise of due diligence.” 28 U.S.C § 2254(e)(2)(A)(i), (ii).

5

Second, the petitioner may show that “the facts underlying the claim would be

6

sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that but for constitutional

7

error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the applicant guilty.” 28 U.S.C. §

8

2254(e)(2)(B). Moreover, a district court may rule on a habeas petition without an

9

evidentiary hearing if the “issues . . . can be resolved by reference to the state court

10

record.” Totten v. Merkie, 137 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 1998). Here, Mr. Fuentes

11

failed to develop the factual basis underlying his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment

12

claims in state court. Neither of the above statutory exceptions above excuses this

13

deficiency. Regardless, the state court record is sufficient to resolve Mr. Fuentes’s

14

claim without an evidentiary hearing.
CONCLUSION

15
16

The Court finds that Mr. Fuentes has failed to exhaust the remedies available

17

in state court on his sole ground for relief. Accordingly, Mr. Fuente’s petition under

18

28 U.S.C. § 2254 must be denied.

19

An appeal of this Order may not be taken unless a circuit judge or district

20

court judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C § 2253. A district court

21

may only issue a certificate of appealability “if the applicant has made a substantial
ORDER DENYING AMENDED PETIION UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2254 FOR WRIT
OF HABEAS CORPUS ~ 9

Case 2:19-cv-00416-RMP

ECF No. 31

filed 11/18/21

PageID.320 Page 10 of 10

1

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” Id. The Court finds that pursuant to

2

28 U.S.C. §1915(a)(3), an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith;

3

thus, there is no basis upon which to issue a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.

4

§2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b).

5

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

6

1.

7

Petitioner’s Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28

U.S.C. § 2254, ECF No. 8, is DENIED.
The Petition is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

8

2.

9

IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Clerk is directed to enter this

10

Order, enter judgment, provide copies to Petitioner and to counsel, and close the

11

file. A certificate of appealability will not be issued as there is no basis that this

12

Court identifies for a valid appeal.

13
14
15

DATED November 18, 2021.
s/ Rosanna Malouf Peterson
ROSANNA MALOUF PETERSON
United States District Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
ORDER DENYING AMENDED PETIION UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2254 FOR WRIT
OF HABEAS CORPUS ~ 10