Narcisse v. Valenzuela

Background

Djoliba Narcisse, who was incarcerated at the California Medical Facility in Vacaville, filed this self-represented petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, the federal law allowing a state prisoner to challenge custody that violates federal law. He was convicted in Contra Costa Superior Court of mayhem and assault with a deadly weapon. The jury also found that he personally used a knife and personally inflicted great bodily injury. It found him not guilty of aggravated mayhem. The California Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction, and the California Supreme Court summarily denied review.

The federal petition raised three claims: (1) the trial court violated due process by giving CALCRIM 3472, concerning a person who provokes a fight, without evidence supporting it; (2) the court violated due process by giving CALCRIM 3471, concerning mutual combat and a person who starts a fight, without supporting evidence; and (3) the sentence violated due process and the right to a jury trial because it exceeded the maximum sentence authorized by the Legislature.

CALCRIM 3472

The state appellate court determined that California law did not support giving CALCRIM 3472 because there was not substantial evidence that Narcisse provoked a fight. But it concluded that the error was not reversible because jurors were instructed to disregard instructions that did not apply to the facts they found.

The federal court applied the deferential standard governing federal review of state-court decisions. It explained that a jury-instruction error warrants habeas relief only when it so affected the entire trial that the resulting conviction violated due process. The court held that the state appellate court’s factual determination was not unreasonable and that its rejection of Narcisse’s federal claim was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established United States Supreme Court law. The court also noted that the Supreme Court had not expressly held that giving a factually unsupported instruction, by itself, violates due process. The court denied relief on this claim.

CALCRIM 3471

The court found that Narcisse had not properly exhausted this claim in state court. Exhaustion generally requires a state prisoner to present a federal claim to the state’s highest court before seeking federal relief. The court nevertheless denied the claim on its merits, as federal law permits when the claim is plainly not a legally supportable federal claim.

The court concluded that the instruction was supported by evidence because the prosecutor discussed the mutual-combat instruction and evidence that could apply to it. The court further held that, even if the instruction had not been supported by the evidence, the jury was instructed to disregard instructions that did not apply. Narcisse had not shown that the instruction so affected the trial that it violated due process. The court denied habeas relief on this claim.

Length of Sentence

Narcisse also argued that the trial judge violated his due-process and jury-trial rights by imposing an upper term of eight years for mayhem, plus a one-year weapon-use enhancement, for a total sentence of nine years. This claim was also unexhausted because Narcisse had not fairly presented it to California’s highest court. The federal court again reached the merits and denied the claim.

The court explained that, under the post-2007 version of California Penal Code § 1170(b), selecting an upper term was within the sentencing court’s discretion and did not depend on additional factual findings requiring a jury’s decision. Relying on Ninth Circuit precedent, the court held that California’s revised sentencing scheme was constitutional and that Narcisse’s sentence did not violate the federal jury-trial or due-process rules. The court denied relief on this claim.

Disposition

The court denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, denied a certificate of appealability, and ordered the Clerk to close the file. The opinion does not state that the petition was denied with or without prejudice.