Delmonico v. Bonta

Background

Michael John Delmonico filed this pro se federal petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging a 2018 misdemeanor conviction from Palo Alto Superior Court. The conviction was for public lewd conduct. He received three years of formal probation, including sex-offender registration and 12 days in county jail.

In state court, Delmonico challenged the admission of his statements to law enforcement and alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel related to calling a defense witness. The Santa Clara County Superior Court Appellate Division rejected those arguments and affirmed the conviction. The California Court of Appeal later denied Delmonico’s request to transfer the case from the appellate division.

His federal petition ultimately included a claim that trial counsel was ineffective in several specific ways and a claim that he was not given a Miranda warning before interrogation. The court identified nine ineffective-assistance subclaims during the federal proceedings.

Exhaustion ruling

Before a federal court can grant relief on a state prisoner’s habeas petition, the prisoner generally must first give the highest available state court a fair opportunity to decide each federal claim. The respondent moved to dismiss because, according to the respondent, only one ineffective-assistance subclaim had been exhausted.

The court agreed that ineffective-assistance subclaims Nos. 2 through 8 were unexhausted. It explained that a general ineffective-assistance allegation does not exhaust separate claims based on different facts. The court found that the state proceedings had presented the claim concerning counsel’s decision to call Nicolas Pittet as a defense witness, but had not presented the factual bases for the other identified subclaims.

The court also rejected Delmonico’s argument that the exhaustion motion was premature or that related claims could proceed together. It stated that a federal court cannot adjudicate a habeas petition containing both exhausted and unexhausted claims. The court further explained that Delmonico’s assertion that the state court made an unreasonable factual determination was not a separate claim; instead, that is one legal standard used to evaluate the claims.

Disposition and required election

The court characterized the petition as containing both exhausted and unexhausted claims. It granted the respondent’s motion to dismiss, but did not immediately dismiss the entire action. Because dismissing the mixed petition could create statute-of-limitations problems, the court required Delmonico to choose one of three options within 28 days: (1) dismiss the unexhausted ineffective-assistance subclaims Nos. 2 through 8 and proceed with the exhausted ineffective-assistance subclaim and Miranda claim; (2) dismiss the action and return to state court before filing a new federal petition; or (3) move to stay the federal case while exhausting the remaining claims in state court.

If Delmonico did not select an option or file the required motion by the deadline, the court stated that it would dismiss the unexhausted subclaims and issue a separate order requiring the respondent to address the remaining ineffective-assistance subclaim and Miranda claim. The order terminated the respondent’s motion to dismiss from the docket.