Warner v. St. Andre
- 3:22-cv-02916
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Warner v. St. Andre, the court dismissed unexhausted claims and ordered a response to eight exhausted habeas claims.
Ryan Scott Warner’s federal habeas petition is narrowed to eight claims that appeared exhausted; the respondent must answer those claims or file a procedural motion, and must provide relevant portions of the state trial record.
What happened
In Warner v. St. Andre, Ryan Scott Warner, a state prisoner representing himself, filed a petition challenging his murder conviction and life-without-parole sentence. The court determined that some claims had not been presented to the California Supreme Court and that eight other claims appeared exhausted.
Warner chose to continue with the exhausted claims rather than seek a stay or pursue the unexhausted claims. The court dismissed the unexhausted claims from the petition and found that the eight exhausted claims were sufficient to require a response, without deciding whether Warner should receive habeas relief.
The court ordered the respondent to file an answer or a procedural motion within 60 days and to provide relevant portions of the state-court record. The ruling was issued on July 25, 2022; the judge’s name is unclear in the provided opinion text.
The detailed version
- Warner v. St. Andre · No. 3:22-cv-02916
- July 25, 2022
Background
Ryan Scott Warner, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 seeking federal review of his state conviction. He was found guilty of murder with a special circumstance involving torture and assault resulting in the death of a child under eight years old. He was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. The California Court of Appeal reversed the special-circumstance finding but affirmed the judgment in all other respects, and the California Supreme Court denied review.
The original petition contained numerous claims. The court previously determined that the petition was mixed because some claims appeared unexhausted, meaning Warner had not presented them to the California Supreme Court. The court gave him the choice of showing that those claims had been exhausted, proceeding only with the exhausted claims and dismissing the others, or seeking a stay.
Claims Allowed to Proceed
Warner stated that he wished to continue with the exhausted claims. The court identified eight claims that appeared to have been presented to the California Supreme Court:
- The evidence was insufficient to show that Warner acted with the intent to torture required for first-degree torture murder.
- Trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the prosecution’s alleged misstatement of the reasonable-doubt standard during rebuttal argument.
- An allegedly erroneous jury instruction on aiding and abetting allowed a conviction without proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
- The aiding-and-abetting instruction allegedly allowed the jury to convict Warner based on his codefendant’s intent.
- Trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the aiding-and-abetting instruction and to the trial court’s response to the jury’s first question.
- A jury instruction allegedly allowed conviction on the invalid theory that Warner failed to perform a legal duty.
- The trial court allegedly violated Warner’s rights by failing to instruct the jury on involuntary manslaughter.
- Cumulative error occurred.
Order
The court dismissed the unexhausted claims from the petition. It liberally construed Warner’s filings and found that the eight claims listed above appeared exhausted and were sufficient to require a response. This order did not decide the merits of those claims or grant habeas relief.
The clerk was directed to serve the order on the California Attorney General’s Office and on Warner. The respondent was ordered to file and serve an answer within 60 days, along with previously transcribed portions of the state trial record relevant to the petition. The respondent could instead file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds within the same 60-day period. If an answer or motion were filed, Warner would have 28 days to respond, subject to the procedures stated in the order.
Classification
This is a procedural order because the court addressed which claims could proceed based on exhaustion and required a response; it did not decide the underlying habeas claims. The opinion’s judge signature is unclear in the provided text, so the judge is identified here as the court.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.