Delmonico v. Bonta

Background

Michael John Delmonico filed this case without a lawyer under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, the federal law allowing a person challenging a state-court conviction to seek relief based on a violation of the United States Constitution, federal law, or a treaty. He challenged a 2018 misdemeanor disorderly-conduct conviction from Palo Alto Superior Court.

The opinion states that Delmonico received a sentence of 12 days in county jail without eligibility for LCA home detention, three years of probation with sex-offender terms, and mandatory registration on the sex-offender registry under California Penal Code § 290. His state appeal was denied, and a petition seeking transfer was summarily denied.

Claims

Delmonico alleged that he was denied effective assistance of counsel, meaning constitutionally adequate representation by his trial lawyer. He identified several alleged failures, including calling a defense witness without adequately reviewing the witness beforehand, inadequately examining or impeaching witnesses, making an inaccurate statement about the location of two businesses, failing to present timelines and Delmonico’s account of events, failing to ensure that a deputy testified, and advising Delmonico not to testify.

He also alleged that he was questioned while in custody without receiving the warning required before custodial questioning under the Fifth Amendment. The court described this as a claim that he was denied his right against self-incrimination.

Screening and order

The court screened the amended petition under the rules governing federal petitions challenging state convictions. Screening is an initial review to determine whether the petition alleges claims that can proceed. The court concluded that the claims, read liberally because Delmonico was representing himself, appeared legally cognizable and warranted an answer from the respondent.

The court therefore ordered the Clerk to serve the order on the respondent and the respondent’s attorney, identified as the Attorney General of the State of California. It ordered the respondent to file an answer within 91 days explaining why the requested relief should not be granted and to provide relevant portions of the previously transcribed state trial record. The respondent may instead file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds within that period. Delmonico may respond to an answer or motion under the deadlines stated in the order.

The order did not decide the merits of Delmonico’s ineffective-assistance or self-incrimination claims and did not grant or deny federal relief. Judge HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. also warned that failing to follow court orders could lead to dismissal for failure to prosecute.