Carrillo v. Matteson

Background

Oscar Alvarez Carrillo, a California state prisoner, filed a petition for a federal writ of habeas corpus—a request for federal relief from state custody—under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He challenged his 2018 first-degree murder conviction and sentence of 30 years to life. His claim was that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to object to alleged prosecutorial misconduct during closing argument.

Carrillo identified two challenged arguments: that the defense’s version of events had been fabricated and that the jury should accept the prosecution’s theory because it was reasonable while rejecting the defense’s theory as unreasonable. He also moved for an evidentiary hearing to develop evidence about whether trial counsel had a reasonable tactical reason for not objecting.

The California Court of Appeal had rejected Carrillo’s ineffective-assistance claim, finding that the prosecutor had not committed misconduct and that counsel reasonably could decline to make a meritless objection. The state court also ruled that Carrillo had not shown prejudice—that is, a reasonable probability that the trial result would have been different if counsel had objected. The California Supreme Court declined review.

Federal court’s analysis

Under § 2254, a federal court may grant relief from a state-court decision on a federal claim decided on the merits only if the state court’s decision was contrary to clearly established United States Supreme Court law, unreasonably applied that law, or rested on an unreasonable determination of the facts. The federal court described this as highly deferential review.

The court concluded that the prosecutor’s “fabrication” comment was permissible criticism of Carrillo’s testimony and defense theory. It found that the prosecutor supported the argument by pointing to evidence that contradicted or failed to support Carrillo’s account. The court also concluded that the prosecutor’s discussion of reasonable and unreasonable interpretations did not improperly reduce the prosecution’s burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The trial court had properly instructed the jury on that burden, and the prosecutor had acknowledged that the jury must accept a reasonable interpretation supporting innocence when the circumstantial evidence supported both an innocent and a guilty conclusion.

Because the prosecutor had not committed misconduct, the court held that counsel’s failure to object was not unreasonable. Alternatively, the court held that Carrillo had not shown prejudice. It pointed to evidence including Carrillo’s possession of a machete while wearing gloves, the stabbing inside the decedent’s apartment, and eyewitness accounts of Carrillo chasing and repeatedly stabbing the decedent. The court held that the state appellate court’s decision was not objectively unreasonable under § 2254.

Evidentiary hearing

The court first stated that Carrillo’s hearing motion was moot because it had denied the petition. The court also ruled that, even apart from mootness, Carrillo was not entitled to a hearing. Because the state court had adjudicated his claim on the merits, federal review was limited to the state-court record, and the petition did not present an evidentiary or factual dispute requiring further development. The court also noted that Carrillo’s separate arguments about ineffective assistance involving plea counsel were not claims raised in this federal petition.

Disposition

Judge Jacquelyn Scott Corley denied the petition and denied the motion for an evidentiary hearing. The order disposed of Docket Nos. 1 and 23.