Bui v. Frauenheim

Background

Tham Bui, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition for a federal writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. A habeas petition is a request for federal relief from custody based on an alleged violation of federal law. Bui was convicted by a jury in Santa Clara County of conspiracy to commit murder, first-degree burglary, assault with a deadly weapon, and arson. The state court also found two prior strike convictions. He received an indeterminate sentence of 155 years to life and a determinate sentence of 48 years. The California Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction, and the California Supreme Court denied review.

Claims and analysis

Bui presented six claims: (1) the trial court wrongly denied a motion to suppress evidence concerning cellphone tracking; (2) the trial court wrongly admitted evidence of a confidential conversation; (3) the trial court wrongly admitted a declaration against interest; (4) the jury instructions were erroneous; (5) cumulative error occurred; and (6) under California Senate Bill No. 1393, the case should be sent back to the trial court to consider dismissing a prior felony enhancement.

The court dismissed claim one. Under Stone v. Powell, federal habeas review of a Fourth Amendment claim is barred when the state provided an opportunity for full and fair litigation of the issue. The court stated that California procedure provides that opportunity and that Bui used it. The state trial court had ruled that Bui lacked an expectation of privacy in his cellphone location data. Because Bui had the required opportunity to litigate the issue, the court held that federal habeas review was barred and dismissed the claim.

The court also dismissed claim six. Senate Bill No. 1393 changed California law to allow a judge to dismiss or strike a prior serious-felony enhancement in the furtherance of justice. The California Court of Appeal had declined to remand Bui's case, reasoning that the trial court's sentencing comments and the facts of the case showed that a remand would serve no purpose. The federal court characterized Bui's claim as purely a state-law claim and dismissed it because a federal habeas court does not reexamine state-court decisions on state-law questions.

The court concluded that claims two, three, four, and five were sufficient, when read generously, to require a response. The order did not decide the merits of those four claims.

Order

The court ordered that the first and sixth claims be dismissed. It directed the respondent to file and serve, within 84 days, an answer showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not be granted, together with relevant portions of the previously transcribed state trial record. The respondent could instead file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds within the same period. If a response or motion is filed, the order gives Bui 28 days to respond, with additional deadlines for a reply if the respondent files a motion to dismiss. Judge James Donato signed the order on May 11, 2020.