Gearhart v. Gastelo

Background

Kevin A. Gearhart sought federal review of state convictions from 2014 for sex crimes against children. He received a sentence of 95 years to life in state prison. His petition raised three types of claims: that the admission of child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome evidence violated due process, that the prosecutor failed to disclose favorable evidence, and that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance.

The court had previously dismissed some claims as unexhausted or procedurally defaulted and stayed the case so Gearhart could present his remaining claims to the California Supreme Court. Gearhart then filed a state petition containing those claims. The state supreme court denied it, citing California rules that bar untimely and successive habeas petitions. After the federal case was reopened, Gastelo filed the motion to dismiss addressed in this order.

Procedural Default

Procedural default generally prevents federal review when a state court rejects a claim because the petitioner failed to follow a state procedural requirement. The court held that California’s rules against untimely and successive petitions were independent and adequate state grounds for denying Gearhart’s claims. The court therefore placed on Gearhart the burden of showing either cause and prejudice or that refusing to consider the claims would produce a fundamental miscarriage of justice.

Gearhart relied on the exception recognized in Martinez v. Ryan, which can sometimes provide cause for a procedural default of an ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claim when the petitioner lacked adequate counsel during the initial state collateral review. The court held that the exception did not apply here because the procedural bar was imposed during a second round of state collateral proceedings, not the initial review. The court also found that Gearhart’s ineffective-assistance claims were not substantial because they were conclusory and lacked factual support showing what counsel should have done or how the alleged failures affected the trial.

The court also rejected Gearhart’s assertion of actual innocence. His declarations concerning events during a 2012 camping trip were not new, did not negate any element of the offenses, and did not show that it was more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have convicted him.

Individual Claims and Disposition

The court dismissed the claims concerning the admission of the child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome evidence and the prosecutor’s failure to disclose favorable evidence because they were procedurally defaulted and could not be excused under Martinez. The court also dismissed the evidence-admission claim on the additional ground that it remained unexhausted because Gearhart had not presented the state court with the operative facts and federal legal theory.

The court concluded that the ineffective-assistance claims were procedurally defaulted and that Gearhart had not established an applicable exception, cause, prejudice, or a fundamental miscarriage of justice. The court granted Gastelo’s motion to dismiss and dismissed the petition. It did not issue a certificate of appealability, entered judgment in favor of Gastelo, terminated the pending motions, and closed the file. Judge William H. Orrick signed the order.