Cappello v. Cisneros

Background

A Sonoma County jury convicted Mark William Cappello of three counts of special-circumstance murder, first-degree burglary, first-degree residential robbery, and conspiracy to possess marijuana for sale and transport. On November 15, 2023, this Court denied Cappello’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus—a federal request challenging the legality of his custody based on alleged constitutional violations—and entered judgment against him. Cappello appealed, and the court of appeals remanded the matter for the limited purpose of deciding whether to issue a certificate of appealability.

Certificate-of-Appealability Standard

A certificate of appealability is required before a person may appeal a final order in a federal habeas proceeding. The court may issue one only when the petitioner makes a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied. When constitutional claims were rejected on their merits, the relevant question is whether reasonable judges could debate or disagree with the district court’s assessment.

Issues Certified for Appeal

The court certified two issues:

1. Whether Cappello’s right to a fair trial was violated when the trial court did not allow the jury to hear that Charles Wyatt, a defense witness, had previously testified as a prosecution witness in another criminal case.

2. Whether prosecutors violated the constitutional disclosure rule commonly called Brady by failing to disclose that, in 2003, Wyatt had been a prosecution witness in a murder case in which the trial judge in Cappello’s case, Robert M. LaForge, had been the lead prosecutor, and that Wyatt received significant benefits for cooperating, including rent payments and between $400 and $600 per month for one year.

Issues Not Certified

The court declined to certify Cappello’s other issues. It concluded that the evidence was sufficient for a rational jury to find that Cappello owned the murder weapon, shot the victims, and was subject to the five special-circumstance enhancements argued by the prosecution.

The court also rejected certification concerning the admission of audio recordings of the Dwyers’ police interviews. It reasoned that Cappello challenged the application of state evidence rules without explaining why the rulings violated federal due process, and that the witnesses were present for cross-examination, defeating the confrontation argument.

The court further declined to certify claims concerning improper vouching by Detective Cutting, admission of character evidence, exclusion of defense witness Dr. Randall Smith, alleged Brady violations involving cooperating witnesses’ plea deals, and an alleged violation involving the prosecution’s discussion of a presumptive bloodstain on Cappello’s pants. The court also declined to certify Cappello’s ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims, finding the alleged deficiencies unsupported by evidence, contradicted by the trial evidence, or insufficient to show that the state court unreasonably applied the governing standard. Finally, it declined to certify the claim concerning an alleged breach of attorney-client privilege because Cappello did not connect it to a federal right.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part the request for a certificate of appealability. The certificate was granted as to the two issues identified above and denied as to the remainder of the issues in Cappello’s motion. The supplied case metadata lists the filing date as January 22, 2024, while the opinion’s signature block states January 22, 2023.