Noel v. Peery

Background

Patrick Noel filed a federal petition challenging his state-court conviction. The court had narrowed the petition to four claims:

- Count 3: ineffective assistance of trial counsel; - Count 6: violation of the Confrontation Clause involving gang-expert testimony; - Count 8: improper denial of a motion for a new trial seeking to exclude gang evidence; and - Count 9: failure to disclose favorable evidence during a 2019 motion for a new trial.

The state moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a pleading does not support a legally recognized claim, to dismiss Counts 3, 8, and 9. The court decided the motion without oral argument.

Count 3: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

Noel alleged that his trial lawyer failed in several ways, including failing to investigate, obtain potentially favorable evidence, call experts, and seek exclusion of gang evidence. The court held that the entire claim was barred by procedural default. Procedural default generally prevents a federal court from reviewing a claim when a state court refused to consider it because the petitioner failed to comply with a state procedural rule.

A California appellate court had denied a state habeas petition as procedurally barred, including because it was untimely and successive under California law. The court rejected Noel’s argument that his later resentencing eliminated that state procedural bar. It also applied the “look-through” presumption: when a higher state court issues an unexplained denial, a federal court generally looks to the last reasoned lower-state-court decision to identify the basis for the denial. The court concluded that the state appellate court’s procedural ruling remained valid and that Noel had not argued cause and prejudice to overcome the default. The court therefore granted the motion to dismiss all of Count 3 based on procedural default.

Count 8: Gang Evidence and New Trial

Noel challenged the denial of his motion for a new trial seeking to exclude gang evidence. The court assumed, for purposes of the decision, that he was asserting a federal claim rather than only a state-law claim. Even with that assumption, the court held that he had failed to exhaust the federal due-process claim in state court. Exhaustion requires a petitioner to present the federal legal basis of a claim to the state courts before seeking federal habeas relief.

The court found that Noel’s filing with the California Supreme Court repeatedly presented the issue as a state-law claim. The court therefore granted the motion to dismiss Count 8 for failure to exhaust the federal due-process claim.

Count 9: Failure to Disclose Favorable Evidence

Count 9 alleged that the prosecution violated the rule requiring disclosure of favorable evidence by failing to provide information underlying its decision to dismiss a firearm-assault charge involving Nathaniel Simmerson. Noel argued that the undisclosed information could have been used to challenge the credibility of another witness, Raelene.

The state argued that the claim was procedurally defaulted because Noel did not raise it when the charge was dismissed. Noel did not dispute that default but argued that the prosecution’s suppression of information and his lawyer’s ineffectiveness supplied cause to excuse it. The court rejected those arguments. It found that Noel knew during trial that the charge had been dismissed and could have raised the issue then. It also held that his procedurally defaulted ineffective-assistance claim could not serve as cause for the default of Count 9 because he had not shown cause and prejudice for that separate claim.

The court further held that Noel had not shown the required prejudice. Even if Simmerson had lied, the court stated, that would not necessarily mean Raelene had lied, and Richard’s testimony was supported by physical and forensic evidence. The court granted the motion to dismiss Count 9 based on procedural default.

Disposition

The court granted the state’s motion to dismiss Counts 3, 8, and 9. Count 6 is the only remaining count. The court ordered the state to answer Count 6 within 60 days of the order and Noel to file a traverse, or response, within 30 days after the state’s answer. The order disposed of Docket No. 25.