Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-01475/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-01475-0/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)

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAMUEL SALDAÑA,

Petitioner,

 vs.

GREG LEWIS, Acting Warden,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 10-1475 CRB (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

(Docket # 3 & 5)

Petitioner, a state prisoner incarcerated at Pelican Bay State Prison, has

filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He

also seeks to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

BACKGROUND

Petitioner was convicted by a jury in Santa Clara County Superior Court

of two counts of carjacking and three counts of second degree robbery. The jury

also found true allegations that petitioner was armed with a handgun during the

commission of all the offenses, and that he personally used a handgun during the

commission of four of the five counts. Petitioner admitted having served a prior

prison term. On March 25, 2004, he was sentenced to 26 years, four months in

state prison and ordered to pay $2,000 in attorney's fees. 

Case 3:10-cv-01475-CRB Document 6 Filed 08/09/10 Page 1 of 4
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

Petitioner appealed claiming that (1) the trial court erred in failing to

honor his request to represent himself, (2) the court misinstructed the jury on the

evidence of uncharged offenses, (3) the court prejudicially erred when it gave

CALJIC No. 2.03, (4) the cumulative effect of the errors denied him due process,

the court's imposition of an upper term on one count and consecutive terms on

two others violated Blakeley v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004), (6) the order to

pay attorney's fees is not supported by substantial evidence, and (7) clerical errors

in the abstract of judgment should be corrected.

On August 18, 2005, the California Court of Appeal struck the order to

pay attorney's fees, ordered the abstract of judgment corrected to accurately

reflect the trial court's sentence and affirmed the judgment as modified. The 

Supreme Court of California denied review, but the Supreme Court of the United

States granted certiorari review and remanded the matter back to the California

Court of Appeal for reconsideration in light of Cunningham v. California, 549

U.S. 270 (2007). 

On May 31, 2007, the California Court of Appeal found that the matter

must be reversed and remanded for resentencing because, under the rationale of 

Blakeley and Cunningham, the imposition of the aggravated term on count 1

violated the Sixth Amendment.

On June 11, 2008, the trial court sentenced petitioner to 25 years, four

months in state prison and declined to order him to pay any attorney's fees.

Petitioner again appealed claiming, as he did in his first appeal, that the

court's imposition of an upper term on one count and consecutive terms on two

others violated Blakeley. 

On June 22, 2009, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment

of the trial court and, on August 26, 2009, the state high court denied review.

Case 3:10-cv-01475-CRB Document 6 Filed 08/09/10 Page 2 of 4
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 3

On February 3, 2010, petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus

in the California Court of Appeal claiming some of the violations he claimed

before and, for the first time, that he denied effective assistance of counsel and

that his conviction was based on false testimony. 

On February 9, 2010, the California Court of Appeal summarily denied

the petition. Petitioner did not seek review from the Supreme Court, but rather

proceeded directly to this court.

DISCUSSION

Prisoners in state custody who wish to challenge collaterally in federal

habeas corpus proceedings either the fact or length of their confinement are first

required to exhaust state judicial remedies, either on direct appeal or through

collateral proceedings, by presenting the highest state court available with a fair

opportunity to rule on the merits of each and every claim they seek to raise in

federal court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)-(c). Petitioner has not done so. He has

not presented the Supreme Court of California with an opportunity to consider

and rule on the claims he has raised in his federal habeas petition – that he

received ineffective assistance of counsel and that his conviction is based on false

testimony. See O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999) (state’s highest

court must be given opportunity to rule on claims even if review is discretionary);

Larche v. Simons, 53 F.3d 1068, 1071-72 (9th Cir. 1995) (Supreme Court of

California must be given at least one opportunity to review state prisoners' federal

claims). The petition must be dismissed as unexhausted.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is

DISMISSED without prejudice to refiling after state judicial remedies are

exhausted. 

Case 3:10-cv-01475-CRB Document 6 Filed 08/09/10 Page 3 of 4
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 G:\PRO-SE\CRB\HC.10\Saldana, S1.dismissal.wpd 4

But based solely on petitioner's affidavit of poverty, his request to proceed

in forma pauperis (docket # 3 & 5) is granted.

The clerk is instructed to close the file. 

SO ORDERED.

DATED: Aug. 4, 2010 CHARLES R. BREYER

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-01475-CRB Document 6 Filed 08/09/10 Page 4 of 4