Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00987/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00987-2/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)

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JULIO JULIETA,

Petitioner,

Civil No. 16cv0987-BTM (BGS)

ORDER:

(1) ADOPTING THE FINDINGS

AND CONCLUSIONS OF UNITED

STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE;

(2) GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART MOTION TO

DISMISS PETITION FOR A WRIT

OF HABEAS CORPUS;

(3) DISMISSING CLAIMS 1-3

FROM PETITION; and

(4) DIRECTING RESPONDENT

TO ANSWER PETITION

vs.

S. FRAUENHEIM, Warden,

Respondent.

Julio Julieta (hereinafter “Petitioner”), is a California prisoner proceeding pro se

and in forma pauperis with a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254. (ECF No. 1.) Petitioner was convicted on March 15, 2013, of aggravated

kidnapping for extortion, assault with a firearm, torture, two counts of forcible rape, and

two counts of forcible sodomy, along with firearm use and bodily injury sentencing

enhancement findings. (Id. at 1, 7.) Petitioner was sentenced to life in prison on the

kidnapping count, plustwo consecutive terms of 25 years-to-life on the rape counts, with

-1- 16cv0987

Case 3:16-cv-00987-BTM-BGS Document 15 Filed 03/14/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 6
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

the sentences on the remaining counts stayed. (Clerk’s Tr. at 743-45; ECF No. 9-4 at

235-37.) He received an additional 40 years imprisonment for the sentencing

enhancement findings, consisting of 10 years for the firearm use enhancement on the

kidnapping count, and 30 years for the firearm use and bodily injury enhancements on

the two rape counts, for a total term of 90 years-to-life. (Id.) On January 12, 2015, the

state appellate court reversed the kidnapping conviction on direct appeal due to

insufficient evidence, affirmed in all other respects, and remanded with instructions to

enter a judgment of acquittal on the kidnapping charge and resentence Petitioner,

including vacating the 10-year firearm use enhancement on the kidnapping count. (ECF

No. 9-10.) On June 15, 2015, the trial court acquitted Petitioner of the kidnapping

charge and resentenced him to 80 years-to-life. (ECF No. 9-14 at 4-5.) The sentence

consisted of the same two consecutive terms of 25 years-to-life on the two rape

convictions, plus the same 30 years on the sentence enhancement allegations for those

two counts, with the sentences on all other counts stayed. (Id.) 

Petitioner alleges here that his federal Constitutional rights were violated because

insufficient evidence supportsthe kidnapping conviction (Claim 1), the trial court failed

to instruct the jury on false imprisonment as a lesser included offense of kidnapping

(Claim 2), the jury was improperly instructed on the elements of kidnapping (Claim 3),

the trial court erred in imposing consecutive 25 years-to-life sentences on the two rape

counts (Claim 4), by the cumulative effect of the errors (Claim 5), and because the

defense was denied access to the victim’s sealed immigration file which the trial and

appellate courts reviewed in camera (Claim 6). (ECF No. 1 at 11-43. ) 1

Respondent has filed a Motion to Dismiss, contending that Claims 1-3 are moot

due to the reversal on appeal and subsequent acquittal of the kidnapping count, and that

Claims 4-6 are not cognizable on federal habeas. (ECF No. 9.) Petitioner has filed a

Traverse arguing that Claims 4-6 are cognizable on federal habeas, and that Claims 1-3

The Court refers to the page numbers assigned by the Court’s Electronic Case Filing (“ECF”) 1

system when citing to the Petition.

-2- 16cv0987

Case 3:16-cv-00987-BTM-BGS Document 15 Filed 03/14/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 6
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

are not moot because if he had received complete relief from the state court on his

kidnapping charge his sentence would have been reduced by 40 yearsrather than merely

10 years. (ECF No. 11.)

United States Magistrate Judge Bernard G. Skomal has filed a Report and

Recommendation (“R&R”) which recommends the Motion to Dismiss be granted as to

Claims 1-3 and denied asto Claims 4-6. (ECF No. 12.) The Magistrate Judge found that

Claims 1-3 are not cognizable on federal habeas because they challenge a conviction

which has been invalidated, and that Petitioner is incorrect in his assertion that his new

sentence did not reflect complete relief from that conviction. (R&R at 3-5.) The

Magistrate Judge found that Claims 4-6 are, on their face, cognizable on federal habeas,

and recommended denying the Motion to Dismiss with respect to those claims. (R&R

at 5-8.) Respondent has filed Objections to the R&R, objecting to the findings that

Claims 4-6 present federal claims. (ECF No. 13.) Petitioner has not filed Objections to

the R&R and has not filed a Reply to Respondent’s objections, although he was granted

leave to do so. (R&R at 8.)

TheCourt has reviewed the R&R and the Objectionsthereto pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1), which provides that: “A judge of the court shall make a de novo

determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or

recommendations to which objection is made. A judge of the court may accept, reject,

or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate

judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

The Court adopts in full the Magistrate Judge’s findings and conclusions with

respect to Claims 1-3, to which no party has objected. The R&R correctly noted that

Claims 1-3 challenge a conviction for which Petitioner was acquitted and for which he

is not currently serving a sentence. (ECF No. 9-14 at 4-5.) Accordingly, those claims

do not allege “that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of

the United States,” as required to state a cognizable claim on federal habeas. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254(a); see e.g. Renteria v. Adams, 526 Fed.Appx. 724, 725 (9th Cir. 2013) (holding

-3- 16cv0987

Case 3:16-cv-00987-BTM-BGS Document 15 Filed 03/14/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 6
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

that federal habeas claim alleging petitioner was prosecuted in violation of double

jeopardy was mooted by his acquittal at trial). 

With respect to Claims 4-6, the Magistrate Judge found they allege federal

constitutional violations, and dismissal is not appropriate prior to the filing of an Answer

because it does not plainly appear from the face of the Petition that Petitioner is not

entitled to relief with respect to these claims. (R&R at 5-8, citing Rule 4, Rules foll. 28

U.S.C. § 2254 (“If it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the

petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the judge must dismiss the petition

and direct the clerk to notify the petitioner.”).) Respondent objects, arguing that Claim

4 does not present a federal claim, and even if it did it is without merit, that Claim 5 does

not state a federal claim because there are no errorsto accumulate, and that Claim 6 does

not state a federal claimbecause there is no constitutionalright to discovery, and because

the state appellate court viewed the victim’s immigration file in camera, refuting

Petitioner’s claim that he could not have a meaningful appellate review without access

to those materials. (Obj. at 2-6.) 

Respondent contends Claim 4 merely challenges Petitioner’s sentence, and,

although admitting that clearly established federal law provides that a state sentencing

error can rise to the level of a federal due process violation, argues that Petitioner has

failed to assert a violation of his federal constitutional rights arising from the alleged

sentencing error, and even if he had, there is no such error here. (ECF No. 9-1 at 5-6.) 

TheCourt agrees with the Magistrate Judge thatRespondent’s argument is appropriately

considered after the Petition has been answered. The same is true with respect to Claim

5, alleging cumulative error, which Respondent acknowledges can rise to the level of a

federal due process violation if there are errors to accumulate, but argues there are no

errors here. (Id. at 7-9.)

Finally, Respondent argues that Claim 6 does not state a federal claim because

Petitioner does not have a right to discovery, and since the documents sought are not in

the custody or control of Respondent, he cannot assert a violation of Brady v. Maryland,

-4- 16cv0987

Case 3:16-cv-00987-BTM-BGS Document 15 Filed 03/14/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 6
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

373 U.S. 83 (1963). (ECF No. 9-1 at 6-7.) This claim was presented to the state

supreme court by Petitioner in a pro se petition for review following the appellate court

decision. (ECF Nos. 9-11.) Petitioner asked the state supreme court to review the

materials and, if they determined they should have been disclosed to the defense at trial,

order them disclosed to the defense so a new trial motion could be filed, or, if the

materials are no longer available, reverse the conviction on the basis that his right to

meaningful appellate review as protected by the Sixth Amendment to the United States

constitution was violated. (Id. at 50-52.) Petitioner claims that the victim was less than

candid in her testimony against him, and may have had a reason to embellish her

allegations, because she was an otherwise excludeable alien who could obtain a crimevictim visa, and without her immigration file the defense may not have been able to

effectively cross-examine her. (Id.) Petitioner presented the claim to this Court by

attaching to his Petition a photocopy of that portion of his pro se petition for review filed

in the state supreme court. (Compare id. with ECF No. 1 at 41-43.) 

The Court adoptsthe Magistrate Judge’s findings and conclusions with respect to

Claim 6 and overrules Respondent’s objections. This claim was presented to the state

court, and is presented to this Court, as alleging a violation of the United States

Constitution arising from the failure of the state courts to release to the defense the

sealed in camera materials. The Court isrequired to liberally construe the Petition when

determining whether a pro se petitioner has stated a cognizable claim for relief. Haines

v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that

Respondent’s argument regarding whether Petitioner has demonstrated a federal due

process violation arising from the lack of access to the victim’s immigration file is

appropriately considered after the Petition has been answered. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the reasons set forth above, the Court ADOPTS the findings and conclusions

ofthe Magistrate Judge,OVERRULES Respondent’s Objections, GRANTS in part and

DENIES in part Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss the Petition for a writ of habeas

-5- 16cv0987

Case 3:16-cv-00987-BTM-BGS Document 15 Filed 03/14/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 6
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

corpus, DISMISSES Claims 1-3 from the Petition, and DIRECTS Respondent to

Answer Claims 4-6 in the Petition. 

Respondent shall file an Answer within forty-five (45) days of the date of this

Order. Petitioner may file a Traverse within thirty (30) days of being served with the

Answer.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 14, 2017 _________________________________________

 

 BARRY TED MOSKOWITZ

 United States District Judge

-6- 16cv0987

Case 3:16-cv-00987-BTM-BGS Document 15 Filed 03/14/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 6