Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_01-cv-20631/USCOURTS-cand-5_01-cv-20631-1/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)

---

United States District Court

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

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR STAY — No. C-01-20631 RMW

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

E-FILED on 8/19/08

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

FRANK MELONZI,

Petitioner,

v.

SUE HUBBARD, Warden,

Respondent.

No. C-01-20631 RMW

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR STAY

[Re: Docket No. 41]

By its order dated August 11, 2008, the court granted petitioner Frank Melonzi's petition for

writ of habeas corpus, subject to the state's right to commence a retrial within sixty days on the

charge of continuous sexual abuse. On August 19, 2008, the state filed a motion requesting a stay

until the Supreme Court decides Chrones v. Pulido, ___ U.S. ___ , 128 S.Ct. 1761 (2008). In

Pulido, which is scheduled to argued on October 18, 2008, the Supreme Court granted certiorari on

the issue of whether the Ninth Circuit's "absolutely certain" approach set forth in Lara v. Ryan, 455

F.3d 1080 (9th Cir. 2006) is based on clearly established Supreme Court authority as required by 28

U.S.C. § 2254(d), or whether the harmless error standard set forth in Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507

U.S. 619 (1993) is the only appropriate test of harmless error on habeas review. 

Case 5:01-cv-20631-RMW Document 42 Filed 08/19/08 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

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

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR STAY — No. C-01-20631 RMW

2

The court denies respondent's motion to stay. After this action was remanded from the Ninth

Circuit, the court requested supplemental briefing regarding petitioner's collateral estoppel claim. 

Petitioner filed his supplemental memorandum, reiterating his argument that because he was

previously acquitted of rape, collateral estoppel barred the use evidence of that "rape" as one of the

required acts for a conviction of continuous sexual abuse. In his supplemental briefing, petitioner

cited Lara in support of his argument that the use of this evidence was not harmless error and that

petitioner's conviction for continuous sexual abuse cannot stand when the jury delivers a general

verdict that may rest on a legally valid or legally invalid ground. 

In response to petitioner's supplemental memorandum, the respondent argued only that

petitioner's collateral estoppel theory fails because the issue decided in petitioner's first acquittal at

trial was not his guilt or innocence of the charge of continuous sexual abuse, rather whether the

evidence was sufficiently reliable. Respondent made absolutely no argument about harmless error

whatsoever. For respondent to now seek to stay this court's judgment on a ground that the state did

not bother to argue is untenable as it is manifestly unfair to the petitioner. As the question of

whether the error was harmless was clearly at issue in regard to the supplemental briefing, the court

finds that respondent has waived this argument, and thus cannot make a showing that it will succeed

on the merits of its argument. Accordingly, the court denies respondent's motion to stay.

DATED: 8/19/08

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

Case 5:01-cv-20631-RMW Document 42 Filed 08/19/08 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

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

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR STAY — No. C-01-20631 RMW

3

Notice of this document has been electronically sent to:

Counsel for Plaintiff:

John J. Jordan jjordanesq@aol.com

Walter K. Pyle walt@wfkplaw.com

Counsel for Defendants:

Nanette Sue Winaker nanette.winaker@doj.ca.gov

Margo J. Yu margo.yu@doj.ca.gov

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel that have not registered

for e-filing under the court's CM/ECF program.

Dated: 8/19/08 /s/ MAG

Chambers of Judge Whyte

Case 5:01-cv-20631-RMW Document 42 Filed 08/19/08 Page 3 of 3