Warren v. Anglea
- Charles Breyer
- 3:19-cv-04174
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Warren v. Anglea, Judge Breyer granted a stay so Warren could exhaust claims in state court and administratively closed the case.
Bernard Warren’s federal habeas case was paused while he pursued state-court exhaustion; one sentencing claim was dismissed with prejudice.
What happened
In Warren v. Anglea, Bernard Warren challenged his Sonoma County conviction and nine-year sentence through a federal petition claiming ineffective assistance of trial counsel and sentencing error. The government argued that some claims were unexhausted and that one sentencing claim could not be raised in this type of case.
The court found that Warren’s ineffective-assistance claim and sentencing claim were unexhausted. It also ruled that the sentencing claim could not support federal relief and dismissed that claim with prejudice.
Judge Charles R. Breyer granted Warren’s request for a stay so he could pursue the unexhausted claims in state court, and ordered the clerk to administratively close the case. Warren may move to reopen it within 28 days after exhausting those claims.
The detailed version
- Warren v. Anglea · No. 3:19-cv-04174
- Charles Breyer
- Feb. 27, 2020
Background
Bernard Warren filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging a Sonoma County Superior Court conviction and nine-year sentence for felony infliction of corporal injury resulting in a traumatic condition on his then-spouse, with a great-bodily-injury enhancement involving domestic violence. His pro se petition raised three claims: ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to prepare properly and object to unspecified constitutional violations; ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to object to the upper-term sentence; and sentencing-court error in imposing the upper-term sentence.
The court had previously ordered Hunter Anglea, the respondent, to explain why relief should not be granted. Anglea argued that the first claim was too vague and unexhausted, the third claim was not a proper federal habeas claim and was unexhausted, and the second claim did not justify relief because the state courts had not unreasonably rejected it. Warren then filed a pro se motion asking the court to stay the case while he pursued an additional claim in state court.
Court’s analysis
The court found that claims one and three were unexhausted. It also ruled that claim three failed to state a claim for relief under § 2254 because a state court’s misapplication of its own sentencing laws generally does not justify federal habeas relief absent fundamental unfairness, which the court found was not present.
The court treated Warren’s motion as requesting a stay to exhaust claim one and a new claim for ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. Under the governing standard, a stay may be granted when the petitioner shows good cause for failing to exhaust the claims, the claims are not plainly meritless, and the petitioner has not engaged in intentionally delaying litigation. The court found that Warren made enough of that showing. It noted that the claims were not plainly meritless, that he had not engaged in intentional delay, and that his alleged ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, later pro se status, and limited access to the law library could constitute good cause.
Disposition
The court dismissed claim three with prejudice. It granted Warren’s motion for a stay to exhaust claim one and a new ineffective-assistance claim. The clerk was instructed to administratively close the case. The order states that nothing further would occur until Warren exhausted the unexhausted claims in state court and, within 28 days afterward, moved to reopen the case and lift the stay.
Judge Charles R. Breyer signed the order on February 27, 2020.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.