Boyette v. Chappell

Background

Maurice Boyette was convicted in Alameda County Superior Court in 1993 of two first-degree murders and being a felon in possession of a firearm. The jury found a multiple-murder special circumstance and a firearm-use enhancement, and sentenced him to death. The California Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and death sentence on direct appeal.

Boyette filed a state habeas petition in 2000. The California Supreme Court later addressed his jury-bias and juror-misconduct claims after an evidentiary hearing and denied the remaining claims in 2013. Boyette filed a federal habeas petition, and the federal proceedings were stayed in 2016 so he could return to state court to exhaust claims that had not yet been presented there.

Issue and arguments

Federal habeas law generally requires a state prisoner to present each claim through the available state-court review process before the federal court may grant relief. An exception applies when no state corrective process is available or when the process is ineffective to protect the prisoner’s rights.

Boyette argued that the state process was unavailable or ineffective because California had not approved and allocated funds to appoint and compensate appellate counsel under Proposition 66. Respondent Ron Broomfield acknowledged that the state had not established that funding system but argued that some state habeas appeals were proceeding and that Boyette had not shown an excessive delay.

Court’s analysis

The court recognized that an unusually long delay in state post-conviction proceedings can sometimes excuse exhaustion. It applied the factors identified in a prior Ninth Circuit decision: the length of the delay, the reason for it, whether the petitioner asserted his rights, and prejudice to the petitioner.

The court found that the delay in Boyette’s case was about two and a half years and that Boyette had not shown, at that time, that the delay was so excessive that it made state remedies unavailable or ineffective. The court noted examples in which shorter delays had not excused exhaustion and explained that even a four-year delay, standing alone, had not been enough in a prior case.

The court said the reason for the delay and Boyette’s assertion of his rights favored Boyette. The state was responsible for failing to allocate funds for appellate counsel, and Boyette had diligently sought review. Boyette did not present an argument concerning prejudice, however. Balancing the factors, the court concluded that the circumstances did not favor excusing exhaustion at that time.

Disposition

Judge William H. Orrick denied without prejudice Boyette’s motion to lift the stay and excuse exhaustion. The order invited Boyette to update and refile the motion in one year if the state courts continued to delay reviewing his petition and the delay then showed that California’s process was unavailable or ineffective.