Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01722/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01722-0/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

 Rost v. Municipal Court, 184 Cal.App.2d 507 (1960). 

1

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEFFON TERRELL SIMMS, 

Petitioner, No. CIV S-06-1722 GEB KJM P

vs.

D.K. SISTO,

Respondent. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for a writ of habeas

corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner challenges his Sacramento County Superior Court

conviction for a violation of California Penal Code § 261. Respondents have moved to dismiss

the petition for failure to exhaust state remedies for some of the claims raised in the petition. 

A. Background

Petitioner raises four claims in his petition: (1) trial counsel was ineffective for

failing to investigate the case properly and for failing to file a “Rost” motion and appellate 1

counsel was ineffective for failing to raise trial counsel’s ineffectiveness; (2) false evidence was

presented during pretrial proceedings and trial; (3) the application of California Penal Code § 295

Case 2:06-cv-01722-NRS Document 12 Filed 12/21/07 Page 1 of 7
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 Respondent has not lodged a copy of petitioner’s motion to recall the remittitur. 2

2

violated the Ex Post Facto Clause and petitioner’s right to due process; and (4) his sentence

violates Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004). 

On direct appeal, petitioner raised three issues: (1) the trial court denied petitioner

his right to present a defense when it excluded evidence that the victim had made prior false

claims of rape and assualt; (2) petitioner’s Fourth Amendment rights were violated by the

involuntary collection and testing of his blood; and (3) petitioner’s sentence violated Blakely v.

Washington. Lodged Documents (Lodg. Doc.) 2 (opening brief) and 3 (petition for review

following Court of Appeal’s decision). The California Supreme Court denied review of these

claims on March 23, 2005, without prejudice to returning with his Blakely claim after that court’s

decision in two then-pending cases. Lodg. Doc. 4. 

On July 31, 2005, petitioner mailed a habeas petition to the California Supreme

Court, reiterating his Blakely claim; this was denied on May 24, 2006. Lodg. Docs. 5 & 6. 

Before the Supreme Court denied this petition, petitioner filed a new habeas

petition in the Court of Appeal, which was assigned case number C052631, and a motion to

recall the remittitur, which was filed in case number C046461, opened upon the filing of

petitioner’s direct appeal. See In re Simms, No. C052631 (Cal. Ct. App.) & People v. Simms,

No. C046461 (Cal. Ct. App.) (both dockets available on line by searching Third District Court of

Appeal cases at http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search, accessed 11/29/07). The habeas

petition raised three claims: ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel, the presentation

of materially false information during the trial proceedings, and the collection of his blood

violated the Ex Post Facto Clause. Lodg. Doc. 7. The Court of Appeal denied this petition on 2

May 18, 2006; on the same day, it denied petitioner’s motion to recall the remittitur without

comment or citation. Lodg. Docs. 8 & 11. 

/////

Case 2:06-cv-01722-NRS Document 12 Filed 12/21/07 Page 2 of 7
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

 Responded has attached an additional document to this petition. This document is

3

stamped “Received May 30, 2006 Clerk Supreme Court” and is entitled “Supplemental Petition

For Review, Declaration And Combined Memorandum Of Points And Authorities.” Above this

title, the document reads “Lower Court of Appeal Recall Remittitur Application C046461.” 

3

Following the denial, petitioner filed a petition for review, describing the reason

the review should be granted as follows:

To clarify whether California’s habeas corpus legal standards

pronounced in the courts holding in People vs. Duvall, supra., Id.

are to be consistently applied to petitioners legal claims contained

in his recall remittitur application, etc., and petition for writ of

habeas corpus, and which are to be deemed set forth herein for the

courts consideration, when the court of appeal habeas corpus

record is transmitted to this court under the California rules of

court

Lodg. Doc. 9 at 2 (reproduced as in original). In the statement of the case, petitioner complained

that he sent a motion to recall the remittitur along with numerous exhibits in the same envelope

as his writ petition, yet received a docket sheet from the Court of Appeal suggesting that the writ

petition and not the motion had been docketed. Id. In addition, he complained of the brevity of

the Court of Appeal’s consideration of his habeas petition and motion to recall the remittitur. Id.

at 4.

On June 20, 2006, while the first petition for review was pending, petitioner filed

a petition for review, challenging the denial of his motion to recall the remittitur. He described

the issue presented for review as follows:

Whether the extensive factual allegations and legal claims of

ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel contained in

attached affidavit to recall remittitur application required court to

vacate judgment of affirmance, reinstate the former appeal and

appoint new counsel to represent petitioner . . . . 

In addition, it is requested that those issues of fact and law

pertinent to the recall remittitur application and contained in the

related petition for review pending now before the court . . . be

“deemed” set forth herein . . . .supportive of petitioners . . .

ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel claim’s herein.

Lodg. Doc. 11 at 2 (reproduced as in original). This petition was denied on July 26, 2006, 3

Case 2:06-cv-01722-NRS Document 12 Filed 12/21/07 Page 3 of 7
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

Petitioner alleges he could not have discovered the grounds for this supplemental pleading before

mailing the original petition for review, because it was not until then that he learned the Court of

Appeal had returned a supplemental affidavit mailed in support of the motion to recall the

remittitur. Lodg. Doc. 11, Supplemental Petition at 2. The supplemental affidavit itself is

attached; it provides some more factual background for his challenge to the collection of his

blood for DNA testing. 

Another attachment to Lodged Document 11 is a “legal letter” addressed to the

Clerk of the California Supreme Court and referencing Court of Appeal’s case numbers C052631

and C046461. It, too, is stamped “Received” on June 5, 2006. In this letter, petitioner urges a

speedy resolution of his claims for ineffective assistance of counsel and ex post facto violation. 

Lodg. Doc. 11, Letter dated “June 1, 06.” 

These additional documents have no bearing on the court’s resolution of the

motion to dismiss. 

 The page cite to the Opposition is to the page number assigned by CM/ECF. 4

4

without comment or citation. Lodg. Doc. 12; Opp’n at 10 (Exhibit).4

B. Analysis

The exhaustion of state court remedies is a prerequisite to the granting of a

petition for writ of habeas corpus. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). A petitioner satisfies the exhaustion

requirement by providing the highest state court with a full and fair opportunity to consider all

claims before presenting them to the federal court. Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276 (1971);

Middleton v. Cupp, 768 F.2d 1083, 1086 (9th Cir.1986). The United States Supreme Court has

held that a federal district court may not entertain a petition for habeas corpus unless the

petitioner has exhausted state remedies with respect to each of the claims raised. Rose v. Lundy,

455 U.S. 509 (1982). A mixed petition containing both exhausted and unexhausted claims must

be dismissed. 

Respondent concedes that petitioner’s Blakely claim has been exhausted, but

argues that the remaining claims were presented “in a procedural context in which the merits

were not considered. . . . “ Mot. to Dismiss at 5:6-7. He relies in part on Castille v. Peoples, 489

U.S. 346, 348, 351-52 (1989), which held that a claim brought in a petition for allocatur before

the Pennsylvania Supreme Court did not satisfy the requirement of fair presentation because of

the discretionary nature of allocatur review in Pennsylvania. Respondent also relies on the

Case 2:06-cv-01722-NRS Document 12 Filed 12/21/07 Page 4 of 7
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

 See also El Muhammad v. Woodford, 2006 WL 462548 (E.D. Cal. 2006) (findings and 5

recommendations, ultimately adopted, discussing Hayward and reaching analogous conclusion).

5

question petitioner presented for review following the denial of his habeas petition. Mot. to

Dismiss at 5:3-6. The court does not agree, for the reasons set forth below.

First, petitioner filed a petition for review from the denial of his motion to recall

the remittitur, asking the California Supreme Court to consider whether the Court of Appeal

properly evaluated his claims of ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel in denying

the motion. Citing no authority, respondent claims that this petition for review was not an

appropriate procedural vehicle for raising petitioner’s claims. 

In People v. Mutch, 4 Cal.3d 389, 396-97 (1971), the California Supreme Court

discussed the impact of a motion to recall the remittitur:

As a general rule, an error of law does not authorize the recalling

of a remittitur. An exception is made, however, when the error is

of such dimensions as to entitle the defendant to a writ of habeas

corpus. The remedy of recall of the remittitur may then be deemed

an adjunct to the writ, and will be granted when appropriate to

implement the defendant’s right to habeas corpus.

In Hayward v. Stone, 496 F.2d 844, 845-46 (9th Cir. 1974), the Ninth Circuit

concluded that issues raised in a motion to recall the remittitur may be properly exhausted in

light of California case law’s expansion of the issues cognizable on such a motion to include

ineffective assistance of counsel on appeal and because the appropriate remedy would be a

reinstatement of the appeal. It concluded:

When the petitioner employs an application to recall the remittitur

in appropriate circumstances . . . then a denial of the application,

followed by a denial of a petition for hearing by the California

Supreme Court, exhausts an appropriate state court remedy, unless

the California court expressly or by an appropriate citation

indicates that the denial is on procedural grounds.

Id. at 846. Petitioner’s claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel thus was presented to

the California Supreme Court in an appropriate procedural posture. 

5

Case 2:06-cv-01722-NRS Document 12 Filed 12/21/07 Page 5 of 7
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

6

Second, although the question presented in the petition for review challenging the

denial of the habeas petition is awkwardly phrased, it nevertheless permitted the Supreme Court

to reach the merits of the three issues raised in the habeas petition filed in the Court of Appeal. 

As noted above, petitioner asked the Supreme Court to consider whether the lower court properly

applied People v. Duvall, 9 Cal.4th 464 (1995), in rejecting his petition. In Duvall, the Supreme

Court described the process for evaluating a writ petition:

An appellate court receiving such a petition

evaluates it by asking whether, assuming the

petition's factual allegations are true, the petitioner

would be entitled to relief. If no prima facie case

for relief is stated, the court will summarily deny the

petition. If, however, the court finds the factual

allegations, taken as true, establish a prima facie

case for relief, the court will issue an OSC.

Id. at 474-75. To determine whether the Court of Appeal had complied with Duvall, the

Supreme Court would be required to determine whether the lower court evaluated the merits of

petitioner’s claims correctly. In this procedural posture, the Supreme Court would thus consider

the merits of the claims presented in the writ below. This is sufficient to exhaust state remedies.

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that respondent’s motion to dismiss be denied

and that he be directed to file an answer within sixty days of any order adopting these findings

and recommendations.

/////

/////

/////

/////

/////

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:06-cv-01722-NRS Document 12 Filed 12/21/07 Page 6 of 7
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

7

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are advised

that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District

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

DATED: December 20, 2007. 

2/simm1722.mix

Case 2:06-cv-01722-NRS Document 12 Filed 12/21/07 Page 7 of 7