Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01895/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01895-2/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

- 1 - 07CV1895-LAB(AJB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GARY LEE BJORSTROM,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 07cv1895-LAB(AJB)

REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION DENYING

PETITION FOR WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS

vs.

F. GONZALEZ,

Defendant.

Petitioner Gary Lee Bjorstrom (hereinafter “Petitioner”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se,

filed an amended petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On February 29,

2008, Respondent filed an answer. On March 12, 2008, Petitioner filed a traverse to the petition. This

Court has reviewed the petition for writ of habeas corpus, Respondent’s answer, Petitioner’s traverse

and all supporting documents. After a thorough review, this Court RECOMMENDS that the petition

for writ of habeas corpus be DENIED and DISMISSED.

Background

On June 28, 2006, Petitioner was charged with one count of possession for sale of a controlled

substance in violation of California Health and Safety Code section 11351; one count of possession

of a controlled substance in violation of California Health and Safety Code section 11377(a); one

count of resisting an executive officer in violation of California Penal Code section 69; one count of

possession of paraphernalia used for narcotics in violation of California Health and Safety Code

section 11364; and one count of unauthorized possession of a hypodermic needle or syringe in

Case 3:07-cv-01895-LAB-AJB Document 11 Filed 05/28/08 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

- 2 - 07CV1895-LAB(AJB)

violation of California Business and Professions Code section 4140. (Lodgment 1 at 1-5.) It was also

specially alleged that as to the possession for sale charge, Petitioner had prior convictions for violating

California Health and Safety Code sections 11351 and 11352 within the meaning of California Health

and Safety Code section 11370.2(a) and California Penal Code section 1203.07(a)(11). (Id.)

On September 25, 2006, Petitioner entered negotiated guilty pleas to possession for sale and

resisting arrest. (Id. at 72-75, 111.) He also admitted a prior narcotics conviction. (Id.) On October

24, 2006, the trial court sentenced Petitioner to prison for an aggregate determinate term of six years.

(Id. at 112.)

The court of appeal affirmed the judgment on June 5, 2007. (Lodgment 4.) On July 6, 2007,

Petitioner filed a petition for review with the California Supreme Court. (Lodgment 5.) On August

16, 2007, the California Supreme Court denied the petition for review without comment or citation.

(Lodgment 6.) 

On November 26, 2007 Petitioner filed a first amended petition for writ of habeas corpus in

this Court arguing that his guilty plea was coerced by the trial court. Respondent filed an answer on

February 29, 2008 contending that Petitioner’s claim is procedurally defaulted. On March 12, 2008,

Petitioner filed a traverse.

Discussion

A. Procedural Default

Respondent argues that Petitioner’s claim, that his guilty plea was not voluntary and knowing

because the trial court improperly pressured him to change his plea, is procedurally defaulted and

barred from federal review. Petitioner contends that his claims are not procedurally barred because

his incompetent attorney failed to request a certificate of probable cause to challenge his guilty plea

under California Penal Code section 1237.5. 

The procedural default doctrine “bar[s] federal habeas when a state court decline[s] to address

a prisoner’s federal claims because the prisoner [has] failed to meet a state procedural requirement.”

Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 729 (1991). The doctrine “is a specific application of the

general adequate and independent state grounds doctrine.” Wells v. Maass, 28 F.3d 1005, 1008 (9th

Cir. 1994). Under the adequate and independent state grounds doctrine, federal courts “will not

Case 3:07-cv-01895-LAB-AJB Document 11 Filed 05/28/08 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

- 3 - 07CV1895-LAB(AJB)

review a question of federal law decided by a state court if the decision of that court rests on a state

law ground that is independent of the federal question and adequate to support the judgment.”

Coleman, 501 U.S. at 729; see also LaCrosse v. Kernan, 244 F.3d 702, 704 (9th Cir. 2001); Park v.

California, 202 F.3d 1146, 1151 (9th Cir. 2000).

For a state procedural rule to be “independent,” the state law basis for the decision must not

be interwoven with federal law. Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032, 1040-41 (1983); Harris v. Reed,

489 U.S. 255, 265 (1989). “A state law ground is so interwoven if ‘the state has made application of

the procedural bar depend on an antecedent ruling on federal law [such as] the determination of

whether federal constitutional error has been committed.’” Park, 202 F.3d at 1152 (quoting Ake v.

Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68, 75 (1985)). For a state procedural bar to be “adequate,” the state procedural

rule must be “firmly established and regularly followed.” Poland v. Stewart, 169 F. 3d 573, 577

(1998); Morales v. Calderon, 85 F.3d 1387, 1392 (9th Cir. 1996). 

The California Supreme Court denied Petitioner’s petition for review without a citation or

comment. (Lodgment 6.) Therefore, this Court must look to the last reasoned state court decision and

presume that the unexplained opinion rests upon the same ground. See Ylst v. Nunnemaker, 501 U.S.

797, 801-06 (1991). The last reasoned state court decision was issued by the Court of Appeal on June

5, 2007. (Lodgment 6.) The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment holding that Petitioner could not

challenge the validity of his guilty plea because he did not first obtain a certificate of probable cause

as required under California Penal Code section 1237.5. (Id.) 

California Penal Code section 1237.5 provides:

 [n]o appeal shall be taken by the defendant from a judgment of conviction

under a plea of guilty . . . except where both of the following are met: (a) The

defendant has filed with the trial court a written statement, executed under

oath or penalty of perjury showing reasonable constitutional, jurisdictional,

or other grounds going to the legality of the proceedings. (b) The trial court

has executed and filed a certificate of probable cause for such appeal with the

clerk of the court.

Cal. Penal Code § 1237.5. The California Supreme Court has held that section 1237.5 should be

applied in a strict manner and that a defendant may not obtain review of the validity of a guilty plea

unless he has fully and timely complied with section 1237.5. People v. Mendez, 19 Cal. 4th 1084,

1099 (1999) (emphasis added) (stating “[i]f he has complied only ‘substantially,’ he has not complied

Case 3:07-cv-01895-LAB-AJB Document 11 Filed 05/28/08 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

- 4 - 07CV1895-LAB(AJB)

sufficiently; and if he has not complied sufficiently, he has not complied at all.”) The court explained

that section 1237.5 is procedural in nature and its purpose is to promote judicial economy by screening

out frivolous guilty plea appeals before time and money are expended on the appeal. Id. at 1095. 

The court of appeal stated that it affirmed the trial court’s judgment because Petitioner

failed to obtain a certificate of probable cause to challenge the validity of his guilty plea pursuant to

California Penal Code section § 1237.5. Section 1237.5 does not rest on federal law and is not

interwoven with federal law. Therefore, section 1237.5 is independent of federal law. The court of

appeal’s reasoning is also adequate because the California Supreme Court has held that the section

1237.5 is to be strictly applied. See Mendez, 19 Cal. 4th at 1099. Since Mendez, California courts

have also regularly followed this requirement. See In re Chavez, 30 Cal. 4th 643, 650 (2003); People

v. Navarro, 161 Cal. App. 4th 1100, 1105 (2008). Therefore, section 1237.5 is an adequate and

independent ground to support the state court’s judgment. See Strong v. Sullivan, 2008 WL 205299

(9th Cir. January 23, 2008) (affirming district court’s dismissal of a petition for writ of habeas corpus

because Petitioner failed to show cause and prejudice to overcome state procedural bar by failing to

comply with California Penal Code § 1237.5). Therefore, Petitioner has procedurally defaulted his

federal claim in state court. 

In cases where a state prisoner has defaulted his federal claims in state court pursuant to an

independent and adequate state procedural rule, “federal habeas review of the claims is barred unless

the prisoner can demonstrate cause for the default and actual prejudice as a result of the alleged

violation of federal law, or demonstrate that failure to consider the claims will result in a fundamental

miscarriage of justice.” Coleman, 501 U.S. at 750.

Petitioner claims that his attorney’s incompetence caused him to fail to obtain a certificate of

probable cause to challenge the validity of his guilty plea. In Murray v. Carrier, the United States

Supreme Court addressed what attorney error constitutes cause under the procedural default doctrine.

 Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478, 486-87 (1986). “[T]he mere fact that counsel failed to recognize

the factual or legal basis for a claim, or failed to raise the claim despite recognizing it, does not

constitute cause for a procedural default.” Id. (attorney ignorance or inadvertence does not constitute

cause for procedural default). The court explained there is no inequity in requiring Petitioner to bear

Case 3:07-cv-01895-LAB-AJB Document 11 Filed 05/28/08 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

- 5 - 07CV1895-LAB(AJB)

the risk of attorney error. Id. at 488. However, a constitutionally deficient counsel under the Sixth

Amendment is cause for a procedural default. Id. at 488.

The existence of cause must be determined on “whether the prisoner can show that some

objective factor external to the defense impeded counsel’s efforts to comply with the States’s

procedural rule.” Id. at 488. For example, showing that the factual or legal basis for a claim was not

reasonably available to counsel . . . or that ‘some interference by officials’ . . . made compliance

impracticable.” Id. If Petitioner has shown cause, the prejudice prong requires “not merely that the

errors at . . . trial created a possibility of prejudice, but that they worked to his actual and substantial

disadvantage, infecting his entire trial with error of constitutional dimensions.” United States v.

Braswell, 501 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting United States v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152, 170

(1982)). 

Petitioner states that he was unaware of the certificate requirement and was prejudiced by his

attorney’s incompetence in obtaining one. He also generally states that the it was the attorney’s duty

to file a proper appeal and his effort was well below the standard. Petitioner appears to be implying

that his counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel. To establish ineffective assistance of

counsel, a petitioner must show that (1) “counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not

functioning as the ‘counsel’ guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment”, and (2) “the deficient

performance prejudiced the defense.” Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). 

Petitioner makes general allegations and has not provided enough facts or evidence to support

such a claim. He does not provide the background on how his appeal was filed, which attorney, trial

or appellate counsel, he claims failed to obtain the certificate of probable cause in light of the fact that

Petitioner, himself, initially filed the notice of appeal in pro per. (Lodgment 1 at 97.) He does not

explain whether he had informed his counsel that he was going to appeal the validity of the guilty plea.

Petitioner has failed to allege any facts to establish that counsel’s conduct amounted to ineffective

assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment. 

Accordingly, the Court concludes that Petitioner has failed to show cause and prejudice to

prevent his claim from being procedurally barred in this Court. In addition, Petitioner does not argue

that the claim is necessary to prevent a fundamental miscarriage of justice. See Coleman, 501 U.S.

Case 3:07-cv-01895-LAB-AJB Document 11 Filed 05/28/08 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

K:\COMMON\BATTAGLI\CASES\2 Orders to be filed\07cv1895.r&r.wpd - 6 - 07CV1895-LAB(AJB)

at 750. Accordingly the Court concludes that Petitioner has procedurally defaulted his federal claim

in state court. 

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned Magistrate Judge recommends that the petition for

writ of habeas corpus be DENIED and DISMISSED. This report and recommendation is submitted

by the undersigned Magistrate Judge to the United States District Judge assigned to this case, pursuant

to the provisions of Title 28, United States Code, section 636(b)(1).

IT IS ORDERED that no later than June 27, 2008, any party to this action may file written

objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. The document should be captioned

“Objections to Report and Recommendation.”

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any reply to the objections shall be filed with the Court

and served on all parties no later than July 11, 2008. The parties are advised that failure to file

objections within the specified time may waive the right to raise those objections on appeal of the

Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 28, 2008

Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia

U.S. Magistrate Judge

United States District Court

Case 3:07-cv-01895-LAB-AJB Document 11 Filed 05/28/08 Page 6 of 6