Graves v. Covello

Background

Matthew Graves, represented by counsel, sought federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 after a jury convicted him in the San Mateo County Superior Court of pimping a minor aged 16 or older, pandering a minor aged 16 or older, forcible human trafficking of a minor for a sex act, and dissuading a witness. On direct appeal, he argued that his trial lawyer was ineffective for failing to object to prosecutorial misconduct during closing arguments. The California Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction and concluded, among other things, that Graves had not shown prejudice because the minor victim’s testimony was substantially corroborated.

Graves later filed state habeas petitions raising the prosecutorial-misconduct issue, other ineffective-assistance claims, and claims involving evidence that he said showed actual innocence. The San Mateo Superior Court denied relief. The California Court of Appeal denied later petitions, citing California’s timeliness rule and concluding that Graves had not stated an ineffective-assistance claim. The California Supreme Court summarily denied his third habeas petition.

Federal Court’s Analysis

The federal court explained that California’s timeliness rule generally bars federal habeas review when the state courts relied on that rule as an adequate and independent state ground. The court found that the Supreme Court’s decision in Walker v. Martin controlled and that Graves had not shown a valid basis for distinguishing or reconsidering it. The court also rejected his reliance on Lee v. Kemna, which involved a different state procedural rule and different circumstances.

A petitioner may overcome a procedural default by showing cause for the default and actual prejudice, or by showing that refusing to consider the claims would result in a fundamental miscarriage of justice. The court found that Graves made neither showing. The delay in obtaining an expert report did not establish cause because it was not an external factor that prevented compliance with California’s procedural rule. The court also found that Graves’s claims of prejudice were insufficient.

The court separately considered Graves’s ineffective-assistance claim. Applying the deferential federal habeas standard, it concluded that the California Court of Appeal’s decision was not contrary to clearly established federal law and was not an unreasonable application of that law. The court also found that Graves’s asserted new evidence—primarily affidavits from family and friends and hotel records—did not come close to showing that no reasonable juror would have convicted him, as required for the actual-innocence exception.

Disposition

The court dismissed Graves’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. It denied a certificate of appealability because Graves had not shown that reasonable judges would debate whether the petition stated a valid constitutional claim or whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.