Cappello v. Cisneros

Background

Mark William Cappello, identified as a California prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his state-court conviction. In 2016, he was convicted of three counts of first-degree murder and related offenses. The state trial court sentenced him to life without parole, along with additional terms of 106 years and 25 years to life. His direct appeal to the California Court of Appeal and the California Supreme Court was unsuccessful.

Claims

Cappello raised 16 claims. In substance, he challenged:

- admission of recordings of two state-witness interviews; - alleged improper vouching by a detective for those witnesses; - trial counsel’s failure to object to the alleged vouching and other alleged ineffective assistance; - admission and exclusion of character evidence; - exclusion of expert evidence and other evidence supporting the defense; - limits on evidence concerning a defense witness’s prior testimony and reliability as a confidential informant; - arguments about that witness’s reliability; - alleged failure to disclose or misrepresentation of plea deals and favors given to prosecution witnesses; - presentation and failure to correct allegedly false evidence; - exclusion of evidence concerning a connection between a prosecution witness and the trial judge and failure to disclose a letter between them; - alleged insufficiency of the evidence because of the claimed evidentiary and prosecutorial errors; - alleged recording and obtaining of privileged communications between Cappello and his attorney; and - the cumulative effect of the alleged errors.

Court’s analysis

At the initial screening stage, the court explained that a federal petition challenging state custody must identify the grounds for relief and summarize the supporting facts. The court stated that notice pleading alone is not enough and that the allegations must point to a real possibility of constitutional error. When liberally construed, Cappello’s claims were cognizable, meaning they were legally capable of being considered in this proceeding. The court did not reach the merits of the claims or determine whether Cappello was entitled to relief.

Ruling and next steps

The court granted Cappello’s motion for leave to proceed without paying filing fees. It ordered the clerk to serve the order on the respondent and the respondent’s attorney, the California Attorney General’s Office.

The court ordered the respondent to file and serve, within 91 days, an answer showing why the requested relief should not be granted. The respondent may instead file, within that period, a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds. If an answer is filed, Cappello may file a response within 28 days. If a motion to dismiss is filed, Cappello may file an opposition or statement of non-opposition within 28 days, and the respondent may reply within 14 days after an opposition is filed.

The order also requires Cappello to serve copies of his communications with the court on the respondent’s counsel, keep the court informed of any address change, and comply with court orders. The court warned that failure to do so may result in dismissal for failure to prosecute. Judge William Alsup signed the order.