Guerrero v. People of California

Background

James Guerrero, representing himself, filed a federal petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his state sentence from Santa Clara County. The court had previously denied the People’s motion to dismiss and granted Guerrero a stay while he pursued state-court proceedings. After reopening the case, the court directed Guerrero to file an amended petition and a new motion to stay.

Guerrero’s amended petition added four claims that had not been presented to the state courts. Three claims alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel: failure to seek exclusion of a codefendant’s hearsay statement, failure to investigate and prepare for trial concerning cell phone evidence, and refusal to argue for a retrial based on AB 333. The fourth claim alleged prosecutorial misconduct based on knowingly introducing false cell phone evidence and relying on it before the jury.

Court’s Analysis

The court applied the standard for a stay-and-abeyance order under Rhines v. Weber. That procedure allows a federal court to pause a mixed habeas petition so that the petitioner can present unexhausted claims to the state courts. The court explained that a stay is appropriate when the petitioner shows good cause for failing to exhaust the claims, the claims are potentially meritorious, and the petitioner has not engaged in abusive or dilatory litigation tactics.

The People conceded that Guerrero had shown good cause and had not engaged in abusive litigation tactics. Although the People argued that Guerrero had not made a reasoned showing that the claims were potentially meritorious, they did not oppose a stay under the circumstances and objected only to an indefinite stay. The court found that Guerrero had satisfied the relevant requirements.

Ruling

The court GRANTED Guerrero’s motion for a stay. The action is stayed until 28 days after the California Supreme Court issues its final decision on Guerrero’s unexhausted claims.

The court ordered Guerrero to present the unexhausted claims to the California Supreme Court. If he does not obtain relief there, he must notify the federal court within 28 days of that court’s decision by filing a motion to reopen and stating that all claims in the federal petition have been exhausted. If he had not already done so, Guerrero also had to file a state habeas petition within 30 days of the order and notify the federal court that he had filed it.

The Clerk was ordered to administratively close the case while the stay is in effect. The court explained that administrative closure is only a statistical procedure and has no legal effect; the case will be reopened when Guerrero reports that he has exhausted the additional claims. The court also terminated Guerrero’s motion to proceed without paying the filing fee as moot because he had paid the filing fee. The order terminated Docket Nos. 20 and 24.