Knoller v. Miller
Filing
13
ORDER DENYING RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS HABEAS CORPUS PETITION by Hon. William Alsup denying 6 Motion to Dismiss.(whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/22/2012)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
MARJORIE KNOLLER,
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
Petitioner,
12
13
No. C 12-00996 WHA
v.
14
WALTER MILLER, Warden, Valley State
Prison for Women,
15
ORDER DENYING
RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO
DISMISS HABEAS CORPUS
PETITION
Respondent.
/
16
17
18
INTRODUCTION
19
In this habeas corpus proceeding, respondent moves to dismiss the petition for failure to
20
exhaust state remedies. Petitioner has filed an opposition, to which respondent has replied. For
21
the reasons stated below, respondent’s motion is DENIED.
22
23
STATEMENT
As stated in the order to show cause (Dkt. No. 2), petitioner Marjorie Knoller’s habeas
24
corpus petition includes the following three constitutional claims: (1) that the state courts
25
unreasonably denied petitioner’s claim that the trial court’s gag orders and threats to expel her
26
counsel from the courtroom during the prosecutor’s rebuttal closing argument was a per se
27
prejudicial violation of her constitutional right to the assistance of counsel; (2) that the state
28
courts unreasonably denied her claim that the trial court’s admission against petitioner of the
incriminating letters of her non-testifying co-defendant constituted a prejudicial violation of her
1
constitutional right to confrontation and to a fair trial; and (3) that the cumulative impact of the
2
foregoing constitutional errors was prejudicial to a degree that warrants habeas relief.
3
In March 2002, petitioner was convicted of second degree murder, involuntary
4
manslaughter, and ownership of a mischievous animal causing death. Petitioner’s motion for a
5
new trial was granted on the second degree murder charge, but denied as to the other two
6
convictions. On appeal, the California Court of Appeal reversed the order granting a new trial
7
on the murder conviction and affirmed the judgment on the other two convictions. Petitioner
8
then filed a petition for review with the California Supreme Court in June 2005. Petitioner
9
states, and respondent does not contest, that petitioner presented her federal constitutional
claims, including her claim for cumulative error, in both her appeal and her subsequent petition
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
for review to the California Supreme Court. The California Supreme Court granted limited
12
review of the order granting a new trial on the murder charge.
13
On remand, the trial court reinstated the murder conviction and sentenced petitioner to 15
14
years to life in prison. Petitioner appealed the conviction, again arguing her federal
15
constitutional claims, including cumulative error. After the California Court of Appeal affirmed
16
the trial court’s judgment, petitioner filed a second petition for review in the California Supreme
17
Court in October 2010. Respondent moves to dismiss the petition on the ground that petitioner
18
has not exhausted her claim for cumulative error because she failed to present the claim to the
19
California Supreme Court in her second petition for review.
20
ANALYSIS
STANDARD OF REVIEW.
21
1.
22
An application for a federal writ of habeas corpus filed by a prisoner who is in state
23
custody pursuant to a judgment of a state court may not be granted unless the prisoner has first
24
exhausted state judicial remedies, either by way of a direct appeal or in collateral proceedings,
25
by presenting the highest state court available with a fair opportunity to rule on the merits of
26
each and every issue he or she seeks to raise in federal court. See 28 U.S.C. 2254(b),(c);
27
Granberry v. Greer, 481 U.S. 129, 133–34 (1987). “[S]tate prisoners must give the state courts
28
one full opportunity to resolve any constitutional issues by invoking one complete round of the
2
1
State’s established appellate review process.” O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999).
2
Exhaustion, however, does not require repeated assertions if a federal claim is actually
3
considered at least once on the merits by the state’s highest court. Greene v. Lambert, 288 F.3d
4
1081, 1086 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Castille v. Peoples, 489 U.S. 346, 350 (1989)).
5
2.
EXHAUSTION.
6
Respondent concedes that petitioner raised her claim of cumulative error in her first
7
petition for review to the California Supreme Court in 2005. That court granted limited review
8
as to two other claims and is thus presumed to have reviewed and denied the cumulative error
9
claim on the merits. See Ylst v. Nunnemaker, 501 U.S. 797, 803 (1991). As stated in its brief,
respondent agrees that this decision “normally . . . would constitute an implicit denial of the
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
cumulative error claim, and would be sufficient to comply with the exhaustion requirement”
12
(Reply Br. 2). Respondent argues, however, that because petitioner again raised the cumulative
13
error issue in her second appearance before the Court of Appeal but failed to include it in her
14
second petition to the California Supreme Court, the claim was not “fully resolved” and
15
petitioner has not completed “one complete round” of the state appellate process.
16
Respondent has cited no decision that supports an interpretation of the exhaustion
17
doctrine as requiring that a petitioner present her claim to the state’s highest court multiple
18
times, even after that court has passed on the merits of the claim. Here, the state supreme court
19
was presented with and did adjudicate the merits of petitioner’s federal constitutional claim.
20
Petitioner’s claim has accordingly been exhausted for purposes of filing the instant habeas
21
petition in federal court. Whether petitioner continued to argue a claim of cumulative error in
22
subsequent proceedings in the Court of Appeal does not affect the exhaustion analysis. Indeed,
23
that court explicitly declined to revisit petitioner’s constitutional claims as outside the scope of
24
its limited review, stating that its “initial opinion remains determinative as to all of the issues it
25
decided that were not addressed by the Supreme Court.” People v. Knoller, No. A123272, 2010
26
WL 3280200, at *49 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 20, 2010). Petitioner is not required to present her
27
federal constitutional claim to the state supreme court a second time under these circumstances.
28
3
1
2
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the Court finds that petitioner has fulfilled the exhaustion
3
requirement with respect to the challenged claim. Accordingly, respondent’s motion to dismiss
4
is DENIED and the hearing set for August 30 is hereby VACATED.
5
RESPONDENT SHALL FILE WITH THE COURT AND SERVE ON PETITIONER AN ANSWER
6
WITHIN SIXTY DAYS OF THE ISSUANCE OF THIS ORDER SHOWING CAUSE WHY A WRIT OF
7
HABEAS CORPUS SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED.
8
9
THE COURT AND SERVING IT ON RESPONDENT WITHIN THIRTY DAYS OF THE DATE THE
ANSWER IS FILED.
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
If petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he shall do so by FILING A TRAVERSE WITH
12
IT IS SO ORDERED.
13
14
Dated: August 22, 2012.
WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
]]>
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?
