Roman v. Frauenheim
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:16-cv-02985
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Roman v. Frauenheim, Judge Gilliam denied reconsideration because the petition raised Brady claims, not ineffective-assistance claims.
Isidro Roman’s request for reconsideration was denied, leaving the earlier judgment in favor of S. Frauenheim in place.
What happened
In Roman v. Frauenheim, Isidro Roman asked the court to reconsider its refusal to address whether his trial lawyer was ineffective. His petition challenged his 1994 conviction by claiming prosecutors withheld evidence that supported his self-defense argument.
The court explained that the petition raised only claims about prosecutors withholding evidence, not claims that trial counsel failed to use that evidence. It therefore declined to decide the ineffective-assistance issue in this case.
Judge Gilliam denied Roman’s motion for reconsideration and terminated the motion. The court noted that a separate petition would probably be treated as a second or successive petition, and that the appeals court had already denied permission to file one.
The detailed version
- Roman v. Frauenheim · No. 4:16-cv-02985
- Haywood Gilliam
- Apr. 29, 2020
Background
Isidro Roman filed a self-represented petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging a 1994 state-court conviction. The petition alleged that the prosecution violated Brady v. Maryland by failing to disclose exculpatory evidence—evidence favorable to the defense—showing that the victim posed a threat to Roman when the shooting occurred and that Roman acted in self-defense.
On May 30, 2017, the court dismissed the petition as procedurally defaulted, meaning that Roman had not properly preserved the claims through the required state-court process. The court also denied a certificate of appealability, entered judgment for S. Frauenheim, and closed the case. Roman later made several unsuccessful requests for relief, including an earlier reconsideration motion, a request for a certificate of appealability, a request to reopen the case, and a request for permission from the Ninth Circuit to file a second or successive petition.
Motion for reconsideration
Roman’s pending motion asked the court to reconsider what he described as an unresolved dispute concerning ineffective assistance of trial counsel. He argued that the court’s failure to decide that claim on the merits was a miscarriage of justice that should excuse the procedural default. He also argued that his lack of legal experience and mistaken belief that appellate counsel would raise all viable issues supplied a reason to excuse the default.
The court explained that the petition and action alleged only Brady claims. A claim that prosecutors withheld exculpatory evidence is different from a claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to present exculpatory evidence at trial. Raising one constitutional claim based on a set of facts does not automatically raise every other possible constitutional claim based on those facts.
The court stated that Roman would need to raise an ineffective-assistance claim in a separate habeas petition. It also stated that such a petition would most likely be a second or successive petition and noted that the Ninth Circuit had denied Roman permission to file one.
Ruling
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. denied Roman’s motion for reconsideration. The court did not resolve an ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claim in this action because the petition did not present that claim. The order terminated Docket No. 45.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.