Noel v. Peery

Background

Patrick E. Noel, a California state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a federal petition challenging his Mendocino County Superior Court conviction and sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. His conviction followed a 2005 trial. The opinion states that he was convicted of attempted murder, two counts of assault with a firearm, unlawful participation in a criminal street gang, endangering a child, two counts of kidnapping, and vehicle theft, and was originally sentenced to 41 years in prison.

Noel previously obtained partial federal habeas relief when the Ninth Circuit held that the evidence was insufficient to support his criminal-street-gang conviction. He was later resentenced, that resentencing was set aside because he was not present and had not personally waived his presence, and he was resentenced again on or about December 20, 2019, to 37 years in state prison. After state-court proceedings concerning that resentencing ended, Noel filed this petition.

In an earlier screening order, the court dismissed Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7; Noel did not challenge those dismissals. The court treated Claims 3 and 6 as a second or successive petition and required Noel to seek permission from the Ninth Circuit before pursuing them. It found Claims 8 and 9 cognizable but held them in abeyance while the issues concerning Claims 3 and 6 were resolved.

Claims at Issue

The remaining claims were:

- Claim 3: Trial counsel was ineffective for allegedly failing to suppress inflammatory gang evidence, investigate properly, and file discovery motions seeking exculpatory evidence. - Claim 6: Gang experts allegedly relied on witness testimony that was not separately admitted, violating the Confrontation Clause. - Claim 8: The state trial court allegedly erred in denying Noel’s motion for a new trial that sought to exclude gang evidence. - Claim 9: The prosecution allegedly violated its duty to disclose exculpatory evidence during the 2019 motion for a new trial.

Reconsideration

A second or successive habeas petition is subject to limits under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. The court had initially concluded that Claims 3 and 6 challenged events from Noel’s original 2005 trial and therefore were second or successive.

While Noel’s reconsideration motion was pending, the Ninth Circuit issued a published decision explaining that a petitioner who obtained habeas relief, was resentenced, and then filed another petition could revive claims from an earlier petition. The court found Noel’s situation similar because he had been resentenced between his first federal habeas case and this petition.

The court therefore granted Noel’s motion for reconsideration and vacated its earlier dismissal of Claims 3 and 6. It stated that, after the stay, the government would be required to respond to Claims 3, 6, 8, and 9. The order did not decide the merits of any of those claims.

Appointment of Counsel and Case Status

The court explained that the constitutional right to counsel does not generally apply to habeas proceedings and that appointment is ordinarily discretionary unless an evidentiary hearing is required. It found appointment warranted because Noel was indigent, the petition involved a lengthy and complex procedural history, and the relevant law was evolving.

The court granted Noel’s motion for appointment of counsel and referred the case to the Federal Public Defender to help locate counsel. All proceedings were stayed until an attorney is appointed. The court also deferred service of the petition until after a case-management conference, allowing appointed counsel to decide whether to file an amended petition or proceed on the existing petition. The order disposed of Docket Nos. 8 and 11.