Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01369/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01369-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Scott Frauenheim
Respondent
Tiengkham Singanonh
Petitioner

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TIENGKHAM SINGANONH,

Petitioner,

v.

SCOTT FRAUENHEIM,

Respondent.

No. 1:19-cv-01369-NONE-SKO (HC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS, GRANTING 

RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS 

CORPUS, DECLINING TO ISSUE 

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY, AND 

DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE 

CASE

(Doc. Nos. 9, 14)

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding in propria persona with a petition for writ of 

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On January 13, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge 

issued findings and recommendations recommending that respondent’s motion to dismiss the 

petition, due to petitioner’s failure to first exhaust his claims by presenting them to the state’s 

highest court, be granted. (Doc. Nos. 9, 13.) The findings and recommendations were served 

upon all parties and contained notice that any objections were to be filed within twenty-one (21) 

days from the date of service of that order. To date, no party has filed objections. 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a 

de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the 

magistrate judge’s findings and recommendation is supported by the record and proper analysis. 

Case 1:19-cv-01369-DAD-SKO Document 16 Filed 02/18/20 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

Petitioner was convicted in Fresno County Superior Court for receiving a stolen vehicle in 

violation of California Penal Code § 496d(a). (Doc. No. 10-1 at 1.) He was sentenced to a term 

of six years in state prison. (Id.) Petitioner raised one claim on direct appeal: that the trial court 

abused its discretion when it denied his motion to strike his prior felony conviction allegation 

pursuant to People v. Superior Court (Romero), 13 Cal. 4th 497 (1996). (Doc. No. 10-2.) On 

August 20, 2018, the California Court of Appeal for the Fifth Appellate District, affirmed the 

judgment. (Id.) Petitioner submitted a letter to the state appellate court on October 2, 2018, 

asserting ineffective assistance of counsel. (Doc. No. 10-5 at 3.) The state appellate court 

declined to file the letter and instead indicated to petitioner that, because its opinion had become 

final on September 17, 2018, it lacked jurisdiction to reconsider that decision or consider the issue 

raised in his letter. (Id.) The state appellate court further advised petitioner that to the extent he 

wished to raise new issues such as ineffective assistance of counsel, he must do so by way of a 

petition for writ of habeas corpus. (Id.) 

On September 27, 2018, petitioner filed a pro per petition for review in the California 

Supreme Court, raising four claims for relief: (1) petitioner’s confession was obtained in 

violation of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1996); (2) the trial court should have reduced his 

crime to a misdemeanor “wobbler” offense because the fair market value of the vehicle in 

question was $300; (3) there was insufficient evidence that petitioner was in possession of the 

stolen property; and (4) one of the law enforcement witnesses at his trial (Detective Harrel)

committed perjury. (Doc. No. 10-3.) The petition for review did not raise any claim based upon 

alleged ineffective assistance of counsel. (See id.)

In his application for relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 pending before this court, filed 

September 30, 2019, petitioner raises the following claims: (1) his Miranda rights were violated; 

(2) his conviction should have been treated as a “wobbler” because the fair market value of the 

stolen property was $300; (3) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to argue petitioner was not 

in possession of the stolen vehicle; and (4) trial counsel was ineffective for not admitting into 

evidence the federal sentencing report that showed petitioner was a self-employed “community 

auto mechanic.” (Doc. No. 1.) 

Case 1:19-cv-01369-DAD-SKO Document 16 Filed 02/18/20 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

With respect to the first two claims, there can be no dispute that those claims were raised 

for the first time in an application for discretionary review to the state’s highest court. This 

normally is insufficient for exhaustion purposes. Casey v. Moore, 386 F.3d 896, 918 (9th Cir. 

2004) (“Because we conclude that Casey raised his federal constitutional claims for the first and 

only time to the state's highest court on discretionary review, he did not fairly present them.”) 

With respect to the second two claims, which both implicate whether effective

representation was provided by his trial counsel, those claims were not fairly presented to the 

California Court of Appeal because they were raised only within a letter sent by petitioner to that 

court after its decision on direct appeal had become final. Petitioner was advised to pursue other 

forms of relief with respect to those new allegations but failed to do so. Moreover, petitioner 

failed to present the highest state court with any opportunity to consider his ineffective assistance 

of counsel claim, rendering exhaustion of that claim insufficient/incomplete. Larche v. Simons, 

53 F.3d 1068, 1071 (9th Cir. 1995) (requiring a state’s highest court be given an opportunity to 

review constitutional claims even when that court’s review is discretionary), overruled on other 

grounds by McMonagle v. Meyer, 802 F.3d 1093 (9th Cir. 2015). In sum, the findings and 

recommendations are correct and will be adopted in full. 

In addition, the court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. A state prisoner 

seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of 

his petition, and an appeal is only allowed in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 

U.S. 322, 335–36 (2003). If a court denies a § 2254 petition, the court may only issue a 

certificate of appealability when a petitioner makes a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To make a substantial showing, the petitioner must 

establish that “reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition 

should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were ‘adequate to 

deserve encouragement to proceed further.’” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) 

(quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 (1983)).

In the present case, the court finds no basis for issuance of a certificate of appealability. 

Reasonable jurists would not find the court’s determination as to application of the exhaustion 

Case 1:19-cv-01369-DAD-SKO Document 16 Filed 02/18/20 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

requirement debatable, wrong, or deserving of encouragement to proceed further. Thus, the court 

declines to issue a certificate of appealability.

Accordingly, the court orders as follows:

1. The findings and recommendations, filed January 13, 2020 (Doc. No. 14), are 

ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. Respondent’s motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 9) is GRANTED;

3. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT

PREJUDICE; 

4. The court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability, and 

5. The Clerk of Court is directed to assign a district judge to this case for the purpose 

of closing the case and then to ENTER JUDGMENT AND CLOSE THE CASE.

This order terminates the action in its entirety.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 15, 2020 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-01369-DAD-SKO Document 16 Filed 02/18/20 Page 4 of 4