Contreras v. Gamboa

Background

Ernesto M. Contreras filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his 2016 California criminal judgment and sentence. He was convicted of multiple offenses involving sexual conduct with children and received a sentence of 75 years to life consecutive to 25 years. The state appellate court affirmed the judgment, although it agreed that the trial court had mistakenly believed consecutive sentencing was mandatory for two counts. The California Supreme Court summarily denied review.

Contreras raised three grounds for relief: (1) the trial court violated state law by imposing consecutive sentences for Counts 1 and 2; (2) the state appellate court violated due process by refusing to remand for resentencing after the trial court’s sentencing error; and (3) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction on Count 3 for aggravated sexual assault of a child.

Consecutive Sentencing

The district court agreed that consecutive sentencing was not mandatory for Counts 1 and 2 under the cited California statutes. Instead, California Penal Code section 669 allowed the trial court to decide whether the sentences would run concurrently or consecutively. But the district court found that the trial court’s mistake did not create a federal constitutional violation. The trial court had identified appropriate sentencing factors and had clearly stated that it would impose consecutive sentences even if it had discretion to impose concurrent sentences. The sentence therefore did not exceed state-law limits or rest on inappropriate factors, and federal review generally does not correct errors of state law.

Failure to Remand

The court also rejected Contreras’s due-process challenge to the state appellate court’s refusal to order resentencing. It found that California law did not create an automatic right to a remand for every sentencing error. The trial court had twice stated that it would impose full consecutive sentences even if consecutive sentencing were discretionary. The district court concluded that the state appellate court’s decision not to remand, based on that clear sentencing record, was not inconsistent with clearly established federal law and was not unreasonable.

Sufficiency of the Evidence

For Count 3, Contreras argued that the evidence did not show the required sexual penetration. The state appellate court had concluded that penetration of the external genital organs, even if slight, was enough under California law and that the testimony permitted jurors to infer such penetration. Applying the federal standard requiring deference to the jury and asking whether any rational juror could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the district court held that the state court’s decision was reasonable. It therefore denied relief on this claim as well.

Disposition

The court denied the petition. It also denied a certificate of appealability because Contreras had not made the required substantial showing of a constitutional violation or shown that reasonable jurists would find the court’s assessment debatable or wrong. The clerk was directed to enter judgment in favor of Martin Gamboa, close the file, and substitute Gamboa for the previously named warden. The court did not consider Contreras’s additional excessive-sentence argument raised in his traverse because the argument was unexhausted and a traverse was not the proper pleading for adding a new ground.