Blake v. Ndoh

Background

Gordon Blake was convicted in California state court on numerous counts of lewd acts and forcible lewd acts involving substantial sexual conduct against four minors. The jury found him guilty on most counts, and the trial judge sentenced him to 194 years to life in prison. The California Court of Appeal affirmed, and the California Supreme Court summarily denied review.

Blake filed a federal petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, which allows a person in state custody to seek relief for a violation of the Constitution or federal law. He raised two claims relevant to the court’s decision. First, he argued that his appellate counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to argue that applying California’s broadened definition of “substantial sexual conduct” and “masturbation” violated the Constitution’s ban on ex post facto laws. Second, he argued that the charging documents, preliminary hearing, and trial did not give him adequate notice of the conduct supporting several counts involving Doe 3.

Ineffective Assistance of Appellate Counsel

The court applied the two-part test from Strickland v. Washington. Under that test, a defendant must show both that counsel’s performance was objectively unreasonable and that the error probably affected the outcome.

The court held that Blake could not show prejudice because the ex post facto argument he said counsel should have raised was legally incorrect. The six-year limitations period for the offenses against Does 1, 2, and 4 had been extended in 1993, before the original periods expired. The court distinguished Stogner v. California, which invalidated a law that revived prosecutions after the original limitations period had already expired. The court relied on the Ninth Circuit’s interpretation that Stogner did not invalidate extensions enacted while the limitations periods were still running.

The court also rejected Blake’s argument that a later state-court interpretation of “substantial sexual conduct” and “masturbation” effectively created an unconstitutional retroactive change. It explained that California courts may authoritatively interpret California law and that ordinary state-law interpretation is generally not reviewable in a federal custody challenge. The court said the interpretation in Blake’s case was supported by decades of precedent and was not an unforeseeable change that revived already-dead claims. It therefore denied Blake’s ineffective-assistance claim.

Procedural Due Process

Blake argued that vague charging documents and inconsistencies in Doe 3’s descriptions of the offenses deprived him of procedural due process. The court explained that federal relief under § 2254 requires a state-court decision that conflicts with, or unreasonably applies, clearly established federal law as determined by the United States Supreme Court.

The court held that Blake identified no Supreme Court precedent requiring the level of detail he claimed was necessary. To the extent he challenged errors at the preliminary hearing, the California Court of Appeal had held that he forfeited those challenges by not raising them at the time. The federal court treated that state-law procedural rule as an independent and adequate ground barring federal review. The court also said that any error in applying California’s own due-process rules would not independently support federal relief.

On the trial-notice issue, the court concluded that Blake received sufficient notice of the nature of the offenses and a fair opportunity to defend himself. Doe 3 described numerous acts in reasonable detail, including different types of sexual conduct, and identified the relevant time periods and victim. The court held that the state courts reasonably determined that Blake did not need to match each individual act to a specific date or count under the circumstances.

Disposition

The court denied the application for a writ of habeas corpus and stated that judgment would be entered accordingly. It also stated that a certificate of appealability would not issue because Blake 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 opinion states that Blake may seek a certificate of appealability from the Ninth Circuit.