Patterson v. People of the State of California

Background

Ayodele Patterson, an inmate at California State Prison, Solano, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his Alameda County Superior Court conviction and sentence. A jury found him guilty of first-degree murder and found true that he personally used a firearm. The jury did not find true allegations that he personally discharged a firearm or caused great bodily injury. The trial court sentenced him to life without the possibility of parole. The California Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, and the California Supreme Court summarily denied review.

Patterson presented three claims: (1) the trial court coerced the jury into reaching a verdict; (2) the prosecutor committed misconduct by presenting the victim sympathetically and repeatedly referring to the killing as “murder”; and (3) the trial court violated due process by imposing fines, fees, and assessments without considering his ability to pay.

Jury-coercion claim

The jury twice reported that it was at an impasse. After the first report, the trial court released a juror who had a preplanned vacation, replaced that juror, and instructed the new jury to begin deliberations again. After the second report, the court asked whether the jury had unanimously agreed on anything, and the foreperson answered no. The court told the jurors to keep open minds, continue discussing the evidence, and request additional assistance if needed. The jury deliberated for several more days before finding Patterson guilty.

Applying the deferential federal habeas standard under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, the court upheld the state appellate court’s rejection of this claim. The court concluded that the state court considered the circumstances as a whole and reasonably determined that the trial court’s instruction was not coercive. The federal court also viewed the additional days of deliberation before the verdict as evidence that the instruction had not improperly pressured the jury.

Prosecutorial-misconduct claims

The state court ruled that Patterson forfeited his claim about the prosecutor’s sympathetic presentation of the victim because his trial counsel did not object. The federal court nevertheless reviewed that claim independently and rejected it on the merits. The court said the trial court likely should have limited some of the testimony and argument about the victim, but the conduct did not make the trial fundamentally unfair. The court relied in part on jury instructions directing jurors not to decide the case based on sympathy, passion, or prejudice and explaining that attorneys’ statements were not evidence. It also noted that the challenged portion of the closing argument was relatively brief and that defense counsel redirected the jury’s attention to whether Patterson was the shooter.

The state court also found that Patterson forfeited his challenge to the prosecutor’s repeated use of the word “murder.” The federal court stated that, even if it considered the claim, it failed on the merits. Patterson did not argue that the killing was not a murder, and the defense instead argued that Patterson was not the person who committed it. Considering the entire trial, the court concluded that the prosecutor’s use of the term did not make the trial fundamentally unfair.

Fines, fees, and assessments

The court ruled that it had no federal habeas jurisdiction over Patterson’s challenge to the financial penalties. A federal habeas petition under § 2254 must challenge unlawful custody, meaning success must change the petitioner’s restraint on liberty. The court concluded that setting aside Patterson’s fines, fees, or assessments would not affect his custody, so this claim could not be addressed in the habeas proceeding.

Disposition

The court denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus. It also denied a certificate of appealability, entered judgment in favor of the respondent, and directed the Clerk to close the file. The order does not state that the petition was denied with or without prejudice.