Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_99-cv-02868/USCOURTS-cand-3_99-cv-02868-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARCUS D. WILSON,

Petitioner,

 v.

 JOSEPH MCGRATH, Warden,

Respondent.

 /

No. C 99-02868 CRB

ORDER

Petitioner, a state prisoner lawfully in custody of respondent, has filed an amended

petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 2254. Now before the Court

are two motions filed by respondent: a motion to dismiss the petition for writ of habeas

corpus as a mixed petition and a motion for discovery. Petitioner has opposed the motion to

dismiss but has not responded to the motion for discovery. After carefully considering the

parties’ briefs and the relevant case law, the Court hereby DENIES respondent’s motion to

dismiss and DISMISSES without prejudice the motion for discovery.

DISCUSSION

Petitioner, who plead guilty to first degree murder and being a convicted felon in

possession of a firearm, was sentenced to 33 years to life by the Santa Clara County Superior

Court on October 4, 1994. Petitioner has filed an amended petition for writ of habeas corpus

in this Court, claiming that he suffered from ineffective assistance of trial counsel in

violation of the Sixth Amendment. Respondent has filed a motion to dismiss the petition as a

Case 3:99-cv-02868-CRB Document 54 Filed 01/23/06 Page 1 of 3
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

mixed petition, arguing that one of six allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel was

not exhausted in state court.

Respondent misinterprets petitioner’s allegation. As respondent acknowledges,

petitioner alleges that his representation was ineffective because, in part, “[c]ounsel failed to

investigate and file a motion to suppress petitioner’s statements taken in violation of his

Miranda right to counsel.” Resp. Mot at 3. Respondent contends that petitioner never argued

in state court that he was denied his right to counsel under Miranda. Id. at 4. Yet petitioner

is not making a Fifth Amendment right to counsel argument under Miranda. Rather, his

Sixth Amendment ineffective assistance of counsel argument includes a failure by trial

counsel to investigate a potential Miranda right to counsel violation. An inquiry into Fifth

Amendment right to counsel violations could potentially be relevant at a later date in the

context of a harmless error analysis, but the crux of petitioner’s argument does not include a

claim of a Fifth Amendment violation. His only allegations arise out of a Sixth Amendment

claim. Viewing petitioner’s arguments in state court in a generous manner because of his pro

se status at all relevant times, the Court finds that petitioner’s Sixth Amendment ineffective

assistance of counsel argument was “fairly presented” to the highest state court. See Picard v.

Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 275 (1971); Crotts v. Smith, 73 F.3d 861, 865 (9th Cir. 1996). In his

petition for review to the California Supreme Court, petitioner stated that “counsel failed to

even act as a diligent advocate in not attempting to file any motions to suppress evidence or

to tell defendant that such motions could be made at a preliminary hearing. Counsel failed to

attack any evidence.” Resp’t. Mot., Exh. 1 at 0010 (Petition for Review, California Supreme

Court, June 30, 1997). The Court finds that this statement, construed broadly, incorporates

petitioner’s allegations regarding trial counsel’s failure to investigate or object to the

admissibility of petitioner’s statements to the government following his request to see his

lawyer. 

//

Case 3:99-cv-02868-CRB Document 54 Filed 01/23/06 Page 2 of 3
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1Respondent concedes that petitioner properly exhausted all other allegations of

ineffective assistance of counsel. Because the Court finds that all of petitioner’s allegations of

ineffective assistance of counsel were properly exhausted, it need not address whether each

separate allegation under one constitutional claim must be exhausted.

G:\CRBALL\1999\2868\order re mixed petition.wpd 3

Accordingly, the Court holds that this allegation was properly exhausted in state court.1 Thus

respondent’s motion to dismiss is DENIED.

The Court further urges the parties to resolve any outstanding discovery disputes in a

professional manner. To that end, the Court hereby DISMISSES without prejudice

respondent’s motion for discovery. Respondent shall file a response to the petition no later

than March 31, 2006. Petitioner shall file a traverse no later than May 1, 2006, upon which

time the matter will be submitted. The oral argument set for January 27, 2006, is hereby

vacated. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 23, 2006 

 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:99-cv-02868-CRB Document 54 Filed 01/23/06 Page 3 of 3