Montes v. Ndoh

Background

Jesus J. Montes sought relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 from his state conviction and fifteen-years-to-life sentence for battery, sexual acts with a child ten years old or younger, and two counts of lewd acts upon a child. The federal court ordered Rosemary Ndoh to respond, she filed an answer denying the claims, and Montes did not file a response to that answer.

The evidence summarized in the opinion included testimony from the child, the child’s mother, a police officer, and sexual-assault-response personnel. Montes testified that he did not touch the child and said he had been sleeping before police woke him.

Claims and Analysis

Montes raised three federal habeas claims:

1. Confrontation claim. Montes argued that the trial court violated his Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses by sustaining an objection to defense counsel’s question asking whether the child’s mother knew why the child was repeating first grade. Montes argued that the answer might have helped show a developmental disability affecting the child’s credibility.

The court held that this claim was procedurally defaulted. The California Court of Appeal had found that Montes forfeited the claim under California Evidence Code § 354, an independent and adequate state procedural rule. Montes did not show cause and prejudice to excuse the default or establish actual innocence. The court also ruled in the alternative that the claim failed on the merits. It concluded that the proposed question was not sufficiently relevant, that concerns about confusion and a potentially extended inquiry outweighed the claimed interest in pursuing it, and that the jury had enough information to evaluate the child’s credibility.

2. Due process and competency claim. Montes argued that the trial court violated due process by allowing the child to testify even though Montes believed the child was not competent.

The court ruled that the claim was not exhausted because Montes had not presented it to the California Supreme Court. It also ruled that the claim was not cognizable in federal habeas review because Montes had presented the issue as a matter of state law rather than identifying a valid federal ground for relief. In the alternative, the court held that the claim lacked merit because the trial court had conducted a competency hearing, allowed defense counsel to question the child and argue that the child was incompetent, and considered counsel’s arguments before finding the child competent.

3. Evidentiary-hearing claim. Montes argued that the state courts erred by denying him an evidentiary hearing during his state collateral challenge concerning the effectiveness of his trial lawyer. The court held that alleged errors in state post-conviction proceedings are not grounds for federal habeas relief because there is no federal constitutional right to state habeas proceedings.

Disposition

The court denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus. It also denied a certificate of appealability because it concluded that reasonable jurists would not find its assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. The clerk was directed to close the file. Judge William Alsup signed the order.