Rivera v. Broomfield

Background

Jamie Rivera, an inmate at Mule Creek State Prison, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his state-court conviction. The amended petition states that an Alameda County Superior Court jury found him guilty of multiple sex offenses involving minors and that he received a total sentence of 40 years.

The court had previously found one claim in Rivera’s original petition potentially sufficient for federal review: that his due-process rights were violated when the jury received an instruction identified as CALCRIM No. 1193. Rivera’s amended petition did not include that claim.

Claims and Analysis

The amended petition raised two claims. First, Rivera argued that his sentence was unlawful because the trial court violated state rules and law by imposing aggravated high terms on multiple counts based on the same offense elements. The court held that an alleged error in interpreting or applying state law is not a basis for federal relief under Section 2254. It dismissed this claim with prejudice.

Second, Rivera alleged that his trial counsel was ineffective under the standard established in Strickland v. Washington. The alleged failures included not objecting to evidence, not presenting a credible defense, not preparing adequately, not communicating clearly, not calling key witnesses, not addressing Rivera’s concerns about potential jury bias, and not responding to his concern about an impostor witness.

The court found these allegations conclusory, meaning they did not provide enough specific facts to explain what counsel did or failed to do and how those actions harmed Rivera. The court identified several missing details, including what evidence should have been challenged, what defense should have been used, and which witnesses should have been called. Because the court believed Rivera could correct these deficiencies, it dismissed the ineffective-assistance claim with leave to amend.

The court also explained that an amended petition replaces the earlier petition. Because Rivera omitted the jury-instruction claim from the amended petition, the court said he waived that claim and could not rely on it in the current petition. The court stated that Rivera could include it in a second amended petition if he did not intend to waive it.

Disposition

The court ordered that the amended petition’s state-law sentencing claim was dismissed with prejudice and that the ineffective-assistance claim was dismissed with leave to amend. Rivera had 28 days from the order’s date to file a second amended petition using the required case caption and civil case number. The second amended petition had to include every claim Rivera wished to present and could not incorporate earlier petitions by reference. The court warned that failure to file a compliant second amended petition would result in dismissal of the action for failure to prosecute or failure to state a cognizable federal habeas claim.

The judge was Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., United States District Judge.