Delmonico v. Bonta

Background

Michael John Delmonico filed this case without a lawyer under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, seeking federal review of his 2018 Santa Clara County Superior Court misdemeanor conviction for disorderly conduct. He was sentenced to 12 days in county jail, three years of probation with sex-offender terms, and mandatory sex-offender registration. The state appellate division denied his appeal in a reasoned order, and the state appellate court later summarily denied his petition to transfer the case.

Delmonico’s federal petition raised ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims, a claim that law-enforcement officers interrogated him in custody without the required warnings, and a claim of cumulative error. The court had previously dismissed several ineffective-assistance subclaims for failure to exhaust state remedies and stayed the case so Delmonico could return to state court. During that period, his probation was terminated on April 20, 2021, and his conviction was expunged on July 2, 2021. The expungement did not eliminate his sex-offender registration requirement.

Motion to Dismiss

The respondent moved to dismiss Claims 2 through 10 and 12 of the fourth amended petition as untimely and procedurally defaulted. Under the federal habeas statute’s one-year filing deadline, the respondent argued that these claims were late because they appeared in the fourth amended petition filed on October 13, 2022, and did not relate back to an earlier petition. The respondent also argued that the claims were procedurally defaulted because the state court had rejected Delmonico’s later state habeas petition for lack of the custody required by California law.

The court found that the claims were timely because they had been raised in the first amended petition. The court concluded that, after probation ended on April 20, 2021, California provided no state corrective process for Delmonico because he was no longer in actual or constructive custody. The federal exhaustion requirement was therefore excused for claims raised after that date, including the first amended petition.

The court nevertheless found the claims procedurally defaulted. Procedural default generally prevents federal review when a state-law ground independently and adequately bars a claim from being heard in state court. Here, the state court’s custody requirement barred Delmonico’s later state habeas petition, and the court treated that requirement as an independent and adequate state ground. Delmonico had not shown cause and prejudice or a fundamental miscarriage of justice that would excuse the default. The court also rejected his argument that his custody status when he filed the federal petition controlled his later state habeas petition; federal and state habeas proceedings are separate, and California law required custody when the state petition was filed.

Disposition

The court vacated its October 13, 2021 order granting the earlier motion to dismiss the first amended petition for failure to exhaust. It granted the respondent’s motion to dismiss Claims 2 through 10 and 12, and those claims were dismissed as procedurally defaulted.

The court identified two remaining claims: (1) that trial counsel was ineffective when counsel called Nicolas Pittet as a defense witness without vetting him beforehand; and (2) that Delmonico was denied his Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination when law-enforcement officers retained and interrogated him without providing the required warnings. The court ordered the respondent to file an answer by May 5, 2025, and allowed Delmonico 35 days after the answer to file a reply. The opinion did not decide the merits of the two remaining claims.