Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-02008/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-02008-0/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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAPHAEL BARRETO,

Petitioner,

v.

M. MARTEL, Warden (A),

Respondent. /

No. C 08-2008 MHP (pr)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

INTRODUCTION

Raphael Barreto, currently incarcerated at Mule Creek State Prison, filed a petition for

writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. His petition is now before the court for

review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2243 and Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 

His in forma pauperis application also is before the court for consideration. 

BACKGROUND

According to the habeas petition, Barreto was convicted in Santa Cruz County

Superior Court of numerous sex offenses, see Cal. Penal Code §§ 288(a), 288(b), and

269(a)(4). On September 21, 2005, he was sentenced to 44 years plus 15 years to life in

prison. 

Barreto appealed. His conviction was affirmed by the California Court of Appeal. 

His petition for review was initially granted and then was dismissed by the California

Supreme Court. He then filed this action. 

Case 3:08-cv-02008-MHP Document 3 Filed 09/25/08 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

DISCUSSION

This court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus "in behalf of a person in

custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in

violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). 

A district court considering an application for a writ of habeas corpus shall "award the writ or

issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted,

unless it appears from the application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled

thereto." 28 U.S.C. § 2243. Summary dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in

the petition are vague or conclusory, palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false. See

Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990).

The petition alleges the following claims: (1) Barreto's rights to due process and equal

protection were violated by the admission of uncharged acts evidence under California

Evidence Code § 1108, which is unconstitutional on its face and as applied to him; (2) his

confession was involuntary and the product of a violation of his Miranda rights; (3)his rights

to due process and notice of the charges were violated by the failure to give fair notice on

counts 8 and 9 against him in that the trial court erred in permitting the pretrial amendment of

count 9 and overruled objections to the use of new generic testimony on the count 8 offense;

(4) his right to due process was violated by the jury instructions on propensity (i.e., CALJIC

2.50.01, 2.50.1, and 2.50.2) which lowered the prosecution's burden of proof; (5) his right to

due process was violated by the failure to give any unanimity jury instruction; (6) his right to

due process was violated by the CALJIC 2.21.2 jury instruction because it reduced the

prosecution's burden of proof; (7) his rights under the Sixth Amendment (see Cunningham v.

California, 549 U.S. 270 (2007), and Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004)), were

violated by the imposition of the full consecutive terms on certain counts based on a finding

made by the court rather than the jury; (8) the determination that the sentences on counts 2-5

and 9-11 were mandatory violated his right to due process; (9) the trial court's failure to

impose a concurrent term on count 10 violated his right to due process; and (10) cumulative

error. Liberally construed, the allegations are cognizable in a federal habeas action and

Case 3:08-cv-02008-MHP Document 3 Filed 09/25/08 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

warrant a response. 

In claim (3), Barreto also contends that his right to effective assistance of counsel was 

violated by the failure to give fair notice on counts 8 and 9 against him in that the trial court

erred in permitting the pretrial amendment of count 9 and overruled objections to the use of

new generic testimony given on the count 8 offense. Petition attach., p. 8. Even with liberal

construction of the petition, no ineffective assistance of counsel claim is suggested by the

statements in Barreto's petition. Accordingly, the ineffective assistance of counsel claim is

dismissed. If Barreto wants to pursue this ineffective assistance of counsel claim, he must

file an amendment explaining the facts that show the constitutional violation within thirty

days of the date of this order. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons,

1. The petition states cognizable claims for habeas relief and warrants a response. 

 2. The clerk shall serve by certified mail a copy of this order, the petition and all

attachments thereto upon respondent and respondent's attorney, the Attorney General of the

State of California.

3. Respondent must file and serve upon petitioner, on or before November 20,

2008, an answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254

Cases, showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not be issued. Respondent must

file with the answer a copy of all portions of the state court record that have been previously

transcribed and that are relevant to a determination of the issues presented by the petition.

4. If petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he must do so by filing a traverse

with the court and serving it on respondent on or before January 2, 2009. His traverse may

not exceed 25 pages in length. 

5. Petitioner is responsible for prosecuting this case. He must keep the court

informed of any change of address and must comply with the court's orders in a timely

fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

Case 3:08-cv-02008-MHP Document 3 Filed 09/25/08 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

4

6. Petitioner's in forma pauperis application is DENIED as unnecessary because

he has the funds to pay the filing fee. (Docket # 2.) Petitioner must pay the $5.00 filing fee

no later than October 31, 2008

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 24, 2008 

Marilyn Hall Patel

United States District Judge

 

Case 3:08-cv-02008-MHP Document 3 Filed 09/25/08 Page 4 of 4