Lee v. Gastelo

Background

John Henry Lee sought federal habeas relief from state convictions. According to the petition, he pleaded no contest in 2015 in Alameda County Superior Court to second-degree robbery. His sentence was enhanced under California Penal Code sections 667.5 and 1192.7. He did not appeal, but he sought and was denied relief in state court in 2019 and 2020 before filing this federal petition.

Claims and analysis

Lee claimed that the California robberies were prosecuted under two conflicting statutes and that the rule of lenity—the principle that an ambiguity in a criminal law should be resolved in favor of the defendant—should apply to him.

The court explained that after a defendant pleads guilty, the remaining federal habeas challenges generally concern whether the plea was voluntary and informed or whether defense counsel gave constitutionally inadequate advice. Neither type of claim appeared in Lee’s petition. The court also explained that a state prisoner generally must first present each federal habeas claim to the highest available state court, giving that court a fair opportunity to decide the claim. The court found that Lee had not exhausted the two possible claims in state court.

The court stated that Lee could seek a stay while exhausting those claims, but warned that proceeding with unexhausted claims would likely lead the respondent to seek dismissal. It also warned that, if the claims were exhausted and allowed to proceed, the respondent would likely argue that the petition was untimely because Lee was convicted in 2015 and filed the federal case in 2020. The court described the one-year federal filing limit and the requirements for equitable tolling, which may apply when a petitioner has pursued rights diligently and an extraordinary circumstance prevented timely filing.

Rulings

The petition was dismissed with leave to file an amended petition by January 18, 2021. The amended petition had to use the caption and case number specified in the order, state “FIRST AMENDED PETITION” on its first page, include all claims Lee wanted to present, and not incorporate the earlier petition by reference. The court stated that failure to file a compliant amended petition would result in dismissal of the action and entry of judgment in favor of the respondent.

Judge Orrick denied as moot Lee’s motion to withdraw his consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction because the case had been reassigned to a district judge. He also denied as moot Lee’s motion for clarification concerning that motion. The court granted Lee’s motion to proceed without paying filing fees and directed the Clerk to terminate all pending motions.