Bonilla v. Ayers

Background

Steven W. Bonilla is represented by appointed counsel in this capital federal habeas case, meaning a case seeking federal review of a state conviction or custody. The court said Bonilla had repeatedly filed motions and other documents without going through his lawyers. In a 2015 order, the court directed him to stop filing substantive pro se motions and to have counsel file them instead, while allowing a limited exception for motions about the adequacy of appointed counsel. The case was later stayed so Bonilla could exhaust certain federal claims in California state courts.

Bonilla then filed another pro se motion titled “Ineffective Assistance of Counsel – Expedited Review Requested.” He alleged that appointed counsel had failed to present evidence that he had been framed by the prosecution. He also argued that his phone records had been seized under a nonexistent federal grand-jury subpoena, that law enforcement had misrepresented that seizure in an arrest-warrant affidavit, and that the alleged misconduct deprived the trial court of jurisdiction. He claimed counsel was ineffective for failing to raise those issues.

Court’s analysis

The court concluded that, even reading the filing generously, it did not present a credible claim of ineffective assistance of counsel or a genuine conflict with appointed counsel. The court stated that Bonilla had a statutory right to appointed counsel, including counsel’s meaningful research and presentation of his federal claims, but not a right to control counsel’s tactical decisions or require counsel to raise particular arguments based on Bonilla’s preferences.

The court also found that Bonilla’s jurisdiction arguments were another attempt to challenge the seizure of his phone records. According to the court, that issue was already raised as Claim Two in Bonilla’s federal petition. Because the case was stayed pending exhaustion, the claim remained pending in the California state courts. The court therefore said it was inaccurate to claim that counsel had failed to raise the issue. Any disagreement about how counsel presented the claim did not establish ineffective assistance or a genuine conflict.

Disposition

The court DENIED Bonilla’s pro se motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. It directed him to file substantive motions through appointed counsel and stated that it would continue screening pro se motions alleging a conflict with or ineffective assistance by counsel. The court further stated that such motions would be returned unfiled if they did not assert a genuine conflict with appointed counsel. The opinion does not identify the judge by name.