JAMES K. SINGLETON, Jr., Senior District Judge.
Frank Abella, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus with this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Abella is in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and incarcerated at California State Prison-Sacramento. Respondent has answered, and Abella has not replied. On January 13, 2017, this Court denied the petition for habeas relief filed by Abella's co-defendant, James Washington, in Washington v. Vazquez, No. 2:14-cv-01618-JKS. Abella's Petition involves the same facts but presents different claims for relief.
On March 5, 2009, Abella, along with his co-defendant Washington, was charged with first-degree murder committed during the commission of a robbery, second-degree robbery, and torture. The information further alleged as to all counts that Abella personally used a deadly and dangerous weapon while committing the offenses. Abella pleaded not guilty and denied the allegations. On direct appeal of his conviction, the California Court of Appeal laid out the following facts underlying the charges against Abella:
People v. Abella, No. C066010, 2013 WL 28896, at *1-2 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 3, 2013).
At the conclusion of Abella's trial, the jury found Abella guilty of all counts and also found true the special circumstance alleged in Count 1 and the weapon enhancement alleged as to Counts 1 and 3 (it found not true the weapon enhancement alleged as to Count 2).
Through counsel, Abella appealed his conviction, arguing that: 1) there was insufficient evidence to support the robbery conviction and special circumstance allegation; and 2) his LWOP conviction constituted cruel and unusual punishment in light of the nature of the offense and Abella's age and mental disabilities. Counsel also filed a supplemental brief arguing that Abella's sentence violated Miller v. Alabama, in which the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Eighth Amendment forbids a sentencing statute that requires a sentence of LWOP for juvenile offenders. 132 S.Ct. 2455, 2469 (2012); see also Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S.Ct. 718, 736 (2012) (holding that Miller announced a new substantive constitutional rule that was retroactive on state habeas review). The brief also contended that there was insufficient evidence of torture. In a reasoned, unpublished opinion issued on January 3, 2013, the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment against Abella in all respects. Washington, 2013 WL 28896, at *8.
Abella then filed a pro se petition for habeas relief in the California Superior Court in which he alleged that counsel was ineffective for failing to "track down and secure" as a witness Todd Schoborg, a homeless man who called 911 to report finding the victim and for arguing during closing without Abella's consent that the jurors should convict on the two lesser-included offenses of voluntary manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter. He additionally argued that his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation was violated by the prosecution's play of Schoborg's 911 call. The Superior Court denied the petition in a reasoned, unpublished opinion issued on March 21, 2014. Abella raised the same claims in habeas petitions filed in the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court, which were summarily denied on May 1, 2014, and December 17, 2014, respectively.
Abella then timely filed a pro se Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus to this Court on February 3, 2015. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A).
In his pro se Petition before this Court, Abella raises the three claims he unsuccessfully raised to the state courts by habeas petition. First, he argues that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call Schoborg as a witness. He additionally contends that trial counsel was ineffective for arguing on summation that jury should find Abella guilty of lesser-included offenses and not guilty of special-circumstance murder. Finally, he claims that his right to confrontation was violated by the admission of Schoborg's 911 call.
Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA"), 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), this Court cannot grant relief unless the decision of the state court was "contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States," § 2254(d)(1), or "was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding," § 2254(d)(2). A state-court decision is contrary to federal law if the state court applies a rule that contradicts controlling Supreme Court authority or "if the state court confronts a set of facts that are materially indistinguishable from a decision" of the Supreme Court, but nevertheless arrives at a different result. Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 406 (2000).
The Supreme Court has explained that "clearly established Federal law" in § 2254(d)(1) "refers to the holdings, as opposed to the dicta, of [the Supreme Court] as of the time of the relevant state-court decision." Id. at 412. The holding must also be intended to be binding upon the states; that is, the decision must be based upon constitutional grounds, not on the supervisory power of the Supreme Court over federal courts. Early v. Packer, 537 U.S. 3, 10 (2002). Where holdings of the Supreme Court regarding the issue presented on habeas review are lacking, "it cannot be said that the state court `unreasonabl[y] appli[ed] clearly established Federal law.'" Carey v. Musladin, 549 U.S. 70, 77 (2006) (citation omitted).
To the extent that the Petition raises issues of the proper application of state law, they are beyond the purview of this Court in a federal habeas proceeding. See Swarthout v. Cooke, 131 S.Ct. 859, 863 (2011) (per curiam) (holding that it is of no federal concern whether state law was correctly applied). It is a fundamental precept of dual federalism that the states possess primary authority for defining and enforcing the criminal law. See, e.g., Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68 (1991) (a federal habeas court cannot reexamine a state court's interpretation and application of state law); Walton v. Arizona, 497 U.S. 639, 653 (1990) (presuming that the state court knew and correctly applied state law), overruled on other grounds by Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002).
In applying these standards on habeas review, this Court reviews the "last reasoned decision" by the state court. See Robinson v. Ignacio, 360 F.3d 1044, 1055 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing Avila v. Galaza, 297 F.3d 911, 918 (9th Cir. 2002)). A summary denial is an adjudication on the merits and entitled to deference. Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 99 (2011). Under the AEDPA, the state court's findings of fact are presumed to be correct unless the petitioner rebuts this presumption by clear and convincing evidence. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 340 (2003).
Abella has not replied to Respondent's answer. The relevant statute provides that "[t]he allegations of a return to the writ of habeas corpus or of an answer to an order to show cause in a habeas corpus proceeding, if not traversed, shall be accepted as true except to the extent that the judge finds from the evidence that they are not true." 28 U.S.C. § 2248; see also Carlson v. Landon, 342 U.S. 524, 530 (1952). Where, as here, there is no traverse filed and no evidence offered to contradict the allegations of the return, the court must accept those allegations as true. See Phillips v. Pitchess, 451 F.2d 913, 919 (9th Cir. 1971).
Abella first argues that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to secure and call as a witness the homeless man who placed the 911 call that he had found the victim's body and for arguing during summation that the jury should convict Abella of the lesser-included offenses rather than for special circumstances murder.
To demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland v. Washington, a defendant must show both that his counsel's performance was deficient and that the deficient performance prejudiced his defense. 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). A deficient performance is one in which "counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the `counsel' guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment." Id.
The Supreme Court has explained that, if there is a reasonable probability that the outcome might have been different as a result of a legal error, the defendant has established prejudice and is entitled to relief. Lafler v. Cooper, 132 S.Ct. 1376, 1385-86 (2012); Glover v. United States, 531 U.S. 198, 203-04 (2001); Williams, 529 U.S. at 393-95. Where a habeas petition governed by AEDPA alleges ineffective assistance of counsel, the Strickland prejudice standard is applied and federal courts do not engage in a separate analysis applying the Brecht harmlessness standard.
Knowles v. Mirzayance, 556 U.S. 111, 123 (2009) (citations omitted); see also Runningeagle v. Ryan, 686 F.3d 758, 775 (9th Cir. 2012).
Thus, Abella must show that defense counsel's representation was not within the range of competence demanded of attorneys in criminal cases, and there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's ineffectiveness, the result would have been different. See Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 57 (1985). An ineffective assistance of counsel claim should be denied if the petitioner fails to make a sufficient showing under either of the Strickland prongs. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697 (courts may consider either prong of the test first and need not address both prongs if the defendant fails on one).
Neither of Abella's ineffective assistance claims have merit. As an initial matter, Respondent points out that, in denying Abella's claims on state habeas review, the state court cited In re Swain, 209 P.2d 793, 796 (Cal. 1949), and In re Harris, 855 P.2d 391, 397 n.5 (Cal. 1993) in finding that his claims were barred because he failed to either allege his claims with sufficient particularity or support the claims with reasonably available documentary evidence. After reviewing the facts and applicable law, the Court agrees that the nature of the procedural bar means that his claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to call Schoborg as a witness (Ground 1) fails to meet the exhaustion requirement because it was not "fairly presented" to the state courts.
Federal courts "will not review a question of federal law decided by a state court if the decision of that court rests on a state law ground that is independent of the federal question and adequate to support the judgment." Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 729 (1991). This Court may not reach the merits of procedurally defaulted claims, that is, claims "in which the petitioner failed to follow applicable state procedural rules in raising the claims." Sawyer v. Whitley, 505 U.S. 333, 338 (1992). "The state-law claim may be a substantive rule dispositive of the case, or a procedural barrier to adjudication of the claim on the merits." Walker v. Martin, 131 S.Ct. 1120, 1127 (2011). Procedural default does not preclude federal habeas review unless the last state court rendering judgment in a case "clearly and expressly" states that its judgment rests on a state procedural bar. Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 298-99 (1989) (quoting Harris v. Reed, 489 U.S. 255, 262-63 (1989)). "In order to constitute adequate and independent grounds sufficient to support a finding of procedural default, a state rule must be clear, consistently applied, and well established at the time of the petitioner's purported default." Morales v. Calderon, 85 F.3d 1387, 1393 (9th Cir. 1996) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
In re Swain stands for the rule that a California habeas petition must state "with particularity the facts" upon which relief is sought. 209 P.2d at 796. In re Harris stands for the additional proposition that documentary evidence must be provided. 855 P.2d at 397 n.5 ("Such factual allegations should also be supported by `[reasonably available] documentary evidence and/or affidavits." (quoting In re Clark, 855 P.2d 729, 749 n.16 (Cal. 1993)). If a petition is dismissed for failure to state the facts with particularity—that is, with a cite to Swain—the petitioner may file a new petition curing the defect. See Gaston v. Palmer, 417 F.3d 1030, 1037 (9th Cir. 2005); see Kim v. Villalobos, 799 F.2d 1317, 1319 (9th Cir. 1986). There is no reason the result should be any different when the defect in the state petition is the failure to attach documentary evidence. Neither the failure to attach documentary evidence nor the failure to plead with particularity are irremediable errors. It therefore appears that the California courts would have allowed Abella to file a new state petition remedying these defects. Accordingly, the Harris/Swain bar did not cause these claims to be procedurally defaulted in state court and thus this bar does not cause them to be procedurally defaulted in federal court either. See Cross v. Sisto, 676 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 2012) (California state court's denial of petitioner's habeas petition with citation to Swain constituted dismissal without prejudice and with leave to amend to plead required facts with particularity and thus did not signify that petitioner's claims were procedurally barred as a matter of state law).
However, in Kim, the Ninth Circuit also stated that it was "incumbent" on the district court, in determining whether the federal standard of "fair presentation" of a claim to the state courts had been met, to independently examine Kim's petition to the California Supreme Court. 799 F.3d at 1320. "The mere recitation of In re Swain does not preclude such review." Id. A review of Abella's state petition here shows, as Respondent has noted, that Abella failed to recite sufficient facts to address his claim in Ground 1 that counsel was ineffective for failing to call Schoborg as a witness. In his state habeas petitions, Abella states only that "Counsel's failure to secure Schoborg as a witness so that he could produce testimony on behalf of the Petitioner's defense was detrimental. Schoborg could've produced testimony that could've helped the Petitioner in his fight against the murder-robbery allegation. Had counsel secured Schoborg as a witness, the outcome of this trial would've been different." A review of the record thus reveals that this ineffective assistance claim was tersely presented, without factual detail or elaboration as to how Abella's testimony would have been helpful.
Accordingly, the California courts' denial of this claim with citations to Swain and Harris indicate that it was not "fairly presented" to the state high court and that Abella could have re-submitted a state habeas petition with greater specificity but did not. Abella's failure to do so means that this ineffective assistance claim is unexhausted. See Rose v. Palmateer, 395 F.3d 1108, 1111 (9th Cir. 2005) (stating federal nature of claim must be pled with specificity before state courts and substance of alleged violation must be pled with some particularity in order to satisfy exhaustion requirement); see also Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 278 (1971) (holding that the substance of a federal habeas corpus claim must first be presented to the state courts). Ground 1 is therefore denied as unexhausted.
Moreover, the lack of particularity also bars any meaningful review of Ground 1 in federal court, independent of his failure to fairly present the claim to the state courts. Pro se habeas filings must be construed liberally. See Roy v. Lampert, 465 F.3d 964, 970 (9th Cir. 2006) ("We must construe pro se habeas filings liberally.") (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). However, "[c]onclusory allegations which are not supported by a statement of specific facts do not warrant habeas relief." James v. Borg, 24 F.3d 20, 26 (9th Cir. 1994); see also Jones v. Gomez, 66 F.3d 199, 204-205 (9th Cir. 1995); Greenway v. Schriro, 653 F.3d 790, 804 (9th Cir. 2011) ("[C]ursory and vague claim[s] cannot support habeas relief."). A petitioner must state his claims with sufficient specificity. See Wacht v. Cardwell, 604 F.2d 1245, 1246-47 (9th Cir. 1979). Here, Abella has not shown that, at the time of trial, Schoborg would have been willing to testify, what his testimony would have been, or that the testimony would have been sufficient to create a reasonable doubt as to his guilt. See Wildman v. Johnson, 261 F.3d 832, 839 (9th Cir. 2001) (speculation that a witness would provide favorable testimony on petitioner's behalf is insufficient to establish Strickland prejudice); Grisby v. Blodgett, 130 F.3d 365, 373 (9th Cir. 1997). Abella's vague and conclusory statement that Schoborg would have provided helpful testimony sufficient to change the outcome of his case is insufficient to warrant relief. See Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 75 (1977) ("The allegations in this case were not in themselves so vague (or) conclusory as to warrant dismissal for that reason alone.") (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). Because Abella has failed to provide a factual basis for this claim, the state court's denial of it was reasonable and not contrary to federal authority.
Nor is Abella entitled to relief on his claim that counsel was ineffective for arguing in favor of a lesser-included offense. A review of the record reflects that the California Supreme Court could reasonably have found that the challenged conduct was tactically motivated to avoid a greater conviction and steeper sentence. Unsuccessful trial strategies are not alone ineffective assistance. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 699 (counsel not ineffective even though defense strategy was unsuccessful because his strategy was the result of reasonable professional judgment). In light of the strong evidence against Abella, Abella's unsupported speculation that the result of his trial would have been different absent counsel's arguments in favor of the lesser-included offenses is insufficient to establish relief. See Landry v. Lindsey, 8 F. App'x 650, 651 (9th Cir. 2001) ("Although counsel conceded some guilt and recommended that the jury consider the lesser included offense . . ., we cannot, in light of the substantial evidence against [the defendant] and his impeached testimony at trial, conclude that such an approach was outside the range of sound trial strategy."). Abella therefore cannot prevail on either of his ineffective assistance claims.
Abella additionally claims that his right to confrontation was violated by the admission of Schoborg's 911 call. The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment mandates that a criminal defendant has the right to confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him. See Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 51 (1987). This generally means that out-of-court testimonial statements by a witness are not admissible against a defendant unless the witness is available for cross-examination at trial or the defendant had an opportunity to cross-examine the witness about the statements before trial. Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 53-54 (2004). The Confrontation Clause applies only to "`witnesses' against the accused, i.e., those who `bear testimony.'" Id. at 51 (citation omitted); Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813, 823-24 (2006). "`Testimony,' in turn, is typically a solemn declaration or affirmation made for the purpose of establishing or proving some fact." Crawford, 541 U.S. at 51 (citation and some internal punctuation omitted); Davis, 547 U.S. at 824. As the Davis court explained:
Davis, 547 U.S. at 821 (citation omitted). Thus, nontestimonial statements do not implicate the Confrontation Clause. Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353, 376 (2008); Whorton v. Bockting, 549 U.S. 406, 420 (2007).
The Supreme Court in Crawford did not "spell out a comprehensive definition of `testimonial,' "but it indicated that testimonial evidence includes, among other things, "police interrogations." Michigan v. Bryant, 562 U.S. 344, 131 S.Ct. 1143, 1148 (2011) (quoting Crawford, 541 U.S. at 68). Subsequently, in Davis, the Supreme Court explained that:
547 U.S. at 822.
Further, in Bryant, the Supreme Court clarified that:
131 S.Ct. at 1162.
Here, the record reflects that the Schoborg volunteered to the 911 operator that he had seen 3 people standing by an injured man and that he had seen "some individuals out here earlier beating people up." Schoborg was not subjected to any interrogation prior to making the declaration, and the exchange of information lacked all the hallmarks of a traditional police interrogation conducted to prepare for a later criminal prosecution. It therefore was not an objectively unreasonable application of clearly established federal law for the California courts on state habeas review to conclude that the 911 call was not testimonial. As in Bryant, the objective circumstances of the encounter indicate that the primary purpose of the statement was to "enable police assistance to meet an ongoing emergency." 131 S. Ct. at 1166-67 (finding that a shooting victim's statements were nontestimonial when he was questioned in a parking lot prior to the arrival of emergency medical services by multiple officers in a disorganized fashion); see also Davis, 547 U.S. at 828 (finding that an assault victim's initial responses to questions by a 911 operator were nontestimonial). Accordingly, Schoborg fails to show that the California courts' rejection of his Confrontation Clause claim was contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established authority of the Supreme Court. He is not entitled to relief on this ground.
Abella is not entitled to relief on any ground raised in his Petition.
The Clerk of the Court is to enter judgment accordingly.
Here, Abella was sentenced to LWOP after being convicted as a juvenile of special circumstance murder. The record reflects that the sentencing judge cited Guinn when imposing Abella's LWOP sentence as "authorizing . . . a presumptive penalty of life without parole for a 16- or 17-year-old special circumstances murderer or at the discretion of the Court 25-years-to-life." Reporter's Transcript at 763. Abella has not raised in this Petition a sentencing claim challenging his LWOP sentence pursuant to Gutierrez. In a previous filing with this Court, Abella moved for a stay and abeyance in these proceedings, indicating that he was to be re-sentenced under Miller in Superior Court. Docket No. 24. A previously-assigned Magistrate Judge denied the stay request without prejudice, and set a deadline for the parties to file a stipulation that these proceedings be stayed pending resolution of Abella's re-sentencing request. Docket No. 25. Neither party submitted any filings regarding Abella's re-sentencing request, see Docket No. 26, and the publicly-available dockets of the California courts do not indicate whether Abella has been re-sentenced. Thus, nothing has changed that would warrant this Court to reconsider the earlier denial of Abella's motion to stay.
Judgment in this matter, however, does not prevent Abella from filing a habeas petition in the California courts that challenges his LWOP sentence under Gutierrez, Miller, and Montgomery. Likewise, because the Supreme Court denied his petition for review without prejudice, he may be able to renew his direct appeal sentencing claim to that court by filing another petition for review.
