Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-06618/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-06618-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael Wesley Briseno
Plaintiff
Raythel Fisher
Defendant

Document Text:

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL WESLEY BRISENO,

Petitioner,

v.

RAYTHEL FISHER,

Respondent.

Case No. 16-cv-06618-PJH 

ORDER DISMISSING CASE AND 

DENYING CERTIFICATE OF 

APPEALABILITY

Re: Dkt. Nos. 2, 3, 5

Petitioner, a California prisoner, has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas 

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner challenges a conviction in Santa Clara 

County, which is in this district, so venue is proper here. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). He 

has also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Petitioner previously challenged 

this conviction, as discussed below.1 The instant petition is DISMISSED as a second or 

successive petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b).

BACKGROUND

Petitioner pled guilty to thirty-two felony counts of sexual misconduct with children. 

On May 12, 2000, he was sentenced to a determinate term of nine years and four months 

in prison, to be followed by a consecutive indeterminate term of 210 years to life. On July 

11, 2001, the California Court of Appeal dismissed his direct appeal for failure to obtain a 

 

1 A more detailed procedural history can be found in People v. Briseno, No. H041820, 

2015 WL 6392174, at *1-4 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 22, 2015), review denied (Cal. Feb. 17, 

2016), cert. denied sub nom. Briseno v. California, 136 S. Ct. 2467 (2016).

Case 4:16-cv-06618-PJH Document 6 Filed 01/12/17 Page 1 of 4
2

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

Northern District of California

certificate of probable cause, and the California Supreme Court denied review on 

October 10, 2001. Subsequent state habeas petitions were denied. 

Petitioner then filed a federal habeas petition, Case No. C 04-1458 PJH, with the 

following claims: (1) petitioner was denied effective assistance of counsel when his trial 

counsel encouraged him to plead guilty despite knowledge of petitioner’s incompetence; 

(2) petitioner was denied effective assistance of counsel when his trial counsel failed to 

advise him of the consequences of his guilty plea; (3) petitioner was denied due process 

because his guilty plea was neither knowing nor voluntary since his counsel failed to 

advise him of the consequences of his guilty plea; and (4) petitioner was denied effective 

assistance of counsel when his trial counsel failed to obtain a certificate of probable 

cause. The petition was denied on the merits on September 17, 2007. The court granted

a certificate of appealability only on the issue whether petitioner was denied effective 

assistance when his trial counsel failed to obtain a certificate of probable cause from the 

trial court, thus precluding him from appealing certain issues.

On December 20, 2010, the Ninth Circuit affirmed denial of the habeas claim 

asserting ineffective assistance of counsel based on failure to obtain a certificate of 

probable cause to appeal the issue of incompetence, and reversed denial of the claim 

that counsel was ineffective for failing to request a certificate of probable cause on the 

failure of the trial court or counsel to advise petitioner of the mandatory minimum 

sentence that he faced on the counts to which he pled guilty. The Ninth Circuit remanded 

the petition with instructions to “grant the writ of habeas corpus on the issue reversed and 

order the [petitioner] released unless he is afforded an opportunity to appeal that 

conviction within a reasonable time.” Briseno v. Woodford, 413 Fed. Appx. 2, 4-5 (9th 

Cir. Dec. 20, 2010). The court issued the conditional writ of habeas corpus on January 

14, 2011.

Petitioner then filed a motion to recall the remittitur before the California court of 

appeal, which granted the motion, thereby reinstating his appeal. Because petitioner still 

had not obtained a certificate of probable cause required by Cal. Penal Code § 1237.5,

Case 4:16-cv-06618-PJH Document 6 Filed 01/12/17 Page 2 of 4
3

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

Northern District of California

the court of appeal dismissed the appeal. People v. Briseno, 203 Cal. App. 4th 1347 

(Cal. Ct. App. 2012), review denied (Cal. May 9, 2012). 

Petitioner, represented by counsel, then sought further relief in this court by filing a 

motion to enforce the judgment in Case No. C 04-1458 PJH. After holding a hearing on 

the motion, the court issued an order on September 18, 2012, denying petitioner’s motion 

to enforce the judgment, which petitioner appealed. On September 12, 2014, a different 

panel of the Ninth Circuit remanded the case back to this court to grant a conditional writ 

“unless the State affords Briseno the opportunity to apply for a certificate of probable 

cause” to appeal his conviction on the ground that his plea was involuntary because the 

trial court and counsel failed to inform him of the mandatory minimum sentences. In 

accordance with the second order of remand, the court issued a second conditional writ 

of habeas corpus on November 10, 2014.

The superior court granted petitioner a certificate of probable cause and the court 

of appeal affirmed the judgment on the merits. People v. Briseno, 2015 WL 6392174 

(Cal. Ct. App. 2015). The California Supreme Court denied review. People v. Briseno, 

No. S230847 (Cal. Feb. 17, 2016). Petitioner also filed a state habeas petition in the 

Superior Court for the County of Santa Clara, In re Briseno, No. C9886818, which the 

superior court denied by order filed October 11, 2016. Docket No. 1 at 17-22. Petitioner 

filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus on November 15, 2016.

The instant petition raises the following claims: (1) the plea must be withdrawn 

because petitioner did not have knowledge of the mandatory minimum sentence; 

(2) petitioner never had the opportunity to prove his lack of intent to commit the crimes; 

(3) the prosecutor compromised the plea hearing by describing petitioner’s writings; and 

(4) vindictive sentencing. All of these claims concern the same conviction underlying his 

prior habeas petition which was finally adjudicated in Case No. C 04-1458 PJH, rendering 

the instant petition an unauthorized “second or successive” habeas petition under 28 

U.S.C. § 2244. See Goodrum v. Busby, 824 F.3d 1188, 1194 (9th Cir. 2016) (“a petition 

Case 4:16-cv-06618-PJH Document 6 Filed 01/12/17 Page 3 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

will not be deemed second or successive unless, at a minimum, an earlier-filed petition 

has been finally adjudicated”) (citing Woods v. Carey, 525 F.3d 886, 889 (9th Cir. 2008)).

A second or successive habeas petition challenging the same state court 

judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 may not be filed in federal district court unless the 

petitioner first obtains from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit an 

order authorizing this court to consider the petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A)

(““Before a second or successive application permitted by this section is filed in the 

district court, the applicant shall move in the appropriate court of appeals for an order 

authorizing the district court to consider the application.”).

Because petitioner has not demonstrated that he received authorization from the 

Ninth Circuit to proceed with this second or successive petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2244(b)(3), this case is DISMISSED. 

CONCLUSION

1. Leave to proceed in form pauperis (Docket Nos. 2, 5) is GRANTED. 

2. The motion to appoint counsel (Docket No. 3) is DENIED because this case 

is dismissed.

3. The petition is DISMISSED without prejudice for the reasons stated above. 

Because reasonable jurists would not find the result here debatable, a certificate of 

appealability (“COA”) is DENIED. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000) 

(standard for COA). The clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 12, 2017

__________________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:16-cv-06618-PJH Document 6 Filed 01/12/17 Page 4 of 4