Case Name: Michael Edward VANSICKEL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Theo WHITE, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1999-01-27
Citations: 166 F.3d 953
Docket Number: No. 97-17143
Parties: Michael Edward VANSICKEL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Theo WHITE, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before: REINHARDT, NOONAN and THOMPSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 3d Series
Volume: 166
Pages: 953–964

Head Matter:
Michael Edward VANSICKEL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Theo WHITE, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 97-17143.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted July 17, 1998.
Decided Jan. 27, 1999.
Connie Marie Alvarez, Federal Public Defender, Sacramento, California, for petitioner-appellant.
Patrick J. Whalen, Deputy Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for respondent-appellee.
Before: REINHARDT, NOONAN and THOMPSON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Opinion by Judge THOMPSON; Dissent by Judge REINHARDT.
DAVID R. THOMPSON, Circuit Judge:
Michael Edward Vansickel appeals the judgment of the district court denying his habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Vansickel was tried and convicted of first degree murder with the special circumstance of lying in wait. During jury selection, he was erroneously denied half of his peremptory challenges, but he failed to contemporaneously object.
This case presents the question whether the erroneous denial of peremptory challenges provided for by state statute violates a defendant's due process rights under the United States Constitution. It also presents the question whether, if a federal constitutional violation occurs in this circumstance, automatic reversal of the defendant's state court conviction is required, or whether, when the defendant has procedurally defaulted on his federal constitutional claim in state court, he must establish cause and prejudice for the default.
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm the district court's denial of the writ. We hold that Vansickel's constitutional rights were violated because he did not receive the full complement of peremptory challenges he was entitled to under California law. However, Vansickel procedurally defaulted his claim in state court and this bars federal habeas review unless he can demonstrate both cause and prejudice, which he cannot.
I
BACKGROUND
Vansickel and Mark Howard, the victim, were in a car that crashed into a drainage ditch in Corning, California. When the police arrived they found Howard in the car; he had been shot in the head at close range by a .22 caliber revolver.
A resident saw Vansickel running across a nearby lawn and heard him say that his friend had been shot, he did not do it, and not to call the police. When the police arrived, they found Vansickel lying in a driveway. As they approached, Vansickel told them that he had the murder weapon. He then displayed a gun, a Ruger .22-caliber revolver, wrapped in a blood-soaked shirt. The officers took cover and ordered Vansick-el to drop the gun. Vansickel fired a shot and then dropped the gun and surrendered. He had broken his hip during the car accident and was taken to a hospital.
When Vansickel was questioned at the hospital, he claimed that a third person, Dan, had been in the car and had shot Howard. However, Vansickel later told his former girlfriend that he had "put two rounds into Mark [Howard]" and he had made up the story about Dan. Vansickel further discredited his claims of innocence by sending letters from jail that were admitted into evidence at trial. In one of the letters, Vansickel stated: "I think I fucked up by telling them that there was one more person in the car and that he shot Mark. I gave them a fony [sic] description an [sic] what he was wearing." Later in the same letter, he wrote, "I had to say something] to the cops so I made up this Dan.... " At trial Vansickel conceded he had shot Howard.
Following his conviction, Vansickel filed a motion for a new trial because during jury selection he was denied half of his peremptory challenges. Under California Code of Civil Procedure § 231, a criminal defendant who is on trial for an offense where the penalty is death or life imprisonment is entitled to twenty peremptory challenges. Van-sickel was only allowed ten peremptories.
The state court judge had discussed jury selection with counsel at a pretrial conference. Recollections of what transpired at the conference conflict, however it is clear that both the court and defense counsel agreed that the defense was entitled to ten peremp-tories. The judge recalled that defense counsel stated it was his understanding he was entitled to ten peremptories and the court agreed. Defense counsel recalled that he asked the court how many peremptories he was entitled to, and the court said ten. The prosecuting attorney remained silent.
During jury selection, Vansickel exercised the ten peremptory challenges. After Van-sickel's tenth challenge, the court stated, "I think we have a jury, Counsel." Both the prosecutor and the defense agreed.
After the verdict, but prior to sentencing, the court realized it had erroneously denied Vansickel his full allotment of peremptory challenges. The court immediately contacted the prosecutor and defense counsel and revealed the error.
Vansickel then moved for a new trial and presented evidence that he had been dissatisfied with the composition of the jury. Van-sickel argued he would have used the additional peremptory challenges. In support of this argument, defense counsel presented a jury chart which had an asterisk next to juror number two, Mr. Frank. Defense counsel argued' that he would have challenged Mr. Frank, who was a pharmacist, because Vansickel tested positive for illegal drug use after the murder, and defense counsel did not want a pharmacist on the jury. Further, defense counsel argued he would have used two more peremptory challenges to try to put on the jury two other potential jurors from the jury pool who he felt would be more sympathetic to the defense.
The trial court denied the motion for a new trial. The court reasoned that because defense counsel failed to make a contemporaneous objection to the loss of peremptory challenges, the court could only grant the motion if Vansickel demonstrated prejudice.. The court found no prejudice. The court stated it could see no logic in defense counsel's argument that because juror number two, Mr. Frank, was a pharmacist he would have a strong feeling about someone with drugs in their system. Further, Vansickel's use of illegal drugs was not a major part of the case. The court dismissed as "the merest speculation" defense counsel's argument that he would have used peremptories to try to put two other persons on the jury. The court stated that if these two potential jurors had been drawn and on voir dire they turned out to be as favorable to the defense as defense counsel claimed, the prosecution most likely would have used its peremptories to strike them.
The California Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court. It determined that Vansick-el's failure to timely object required that he demonstrate prejudice. The standard for prejudice under California law is miscarriage of justice. The Court of Appeal held that Vansickel could not demonstrate prejudice for essentially the same reasons relied on by the trial court. It concluded that Mr. Franks's occupation as a pharmacist was not prejudicial because drugs were not a significant part of the case and Vansickel did not present any evidence that drugs affected his mental state at the time of the murder. Further, it was mere speculation that the two prospective jurors Vansickel wanted to put on the jury would ever have been sworn. Finally, the appellate court concluded that the overwhelming evidence against Vansickel supported the conclusion that no miscarriage of justice occurred. The California Supreme Court denied review. Vansickel then filed state habeas petitions in the California Court of Appeal and in the California Supreme Court. Both courts denied the petitions. He then filed his federal habeas petition in the district court.
The district court determined that .the trial court's improper denial of peremptory challenges violated Vansickel's due process rights. However, the court concluded that the claim was procedurally barred because Vansickel failed to make a timely objection in state court. Therefore Vansickel had to demonstrate cause and prejudice. The district court concluded that defense counsel's failure to object to a limit of ten perempto-ries did not establish cause, and that Van-sickel could not establish prejudice because there was no basis to infer that the result of Vansickel's trial would have been different had he been given his full complement of peremptory challenges.
A. Due Process Violation
The first issue we address is whether denial of peremptory challenges provided for by a state statute violates a state criminal defendant's federal constitutional rights.
The Supreme Court has stated that "peremptory challenges are not of constitutional dimension." Ross v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 81, 88, 108 S.Ct. 2273, 101 L.Ed.2d 80 (1988). In Ross, the Court held that the erroneous denial of a challenge for cause that required defense counsel to use a peremptory challenge did not violate the Sixth Amendment. The Court concluded that peremptory challenges are a creature of statute, not required by the Constitution, and "[a]s such, the 'right' to peremptory challenges is 'denied or impaired' only if the defendant does not receive that which state law provides." Id. at 89, 108 S.Ct. 2273.
In United States v. Martinez-Salazar, 146 F.3d 653 (9th Cir.1998), we held that Ross did not foreclose a Fifth Amendment challenge to a wrongful denial of a peremptory challenge. Id. at 657-58. There, we concluded that the erroneous denial of peremptory challenges provided for by federal law violated a defendant's Fifth Anendment right to due process in a federal prosecution. Id. at 658. We distinguished our holding from earlier decisions of this court that con-eluded the impairment of a defendant's use of peremptory challenges did not constitute a due process violation. See Siripongs v. Calderon, 35 F.3d 1308 (9th Cir.1994); United States v. Baker, 10 F.3d 1374 (9th Cir.1993). These cases are instructive.
In Baker, the defendants alleged their Fifth Amendment due process rights were violated by the district court's refusal to ask supplemental voir dire questions to probe prospective jurors for bias. Baker, 10 F.3d at 1403-04. The defense used peremptory challenges to excuse three jurors that it argued should have been excused for cause. However, the defendants' due process rights were not violated because they were provided more than the required allotment of peremptory challenges and they did not exhaust them. Id. at 1404.
In Siripongs, the petitioner argued that the trial court applied the wrong standard during voir dire to determine "death prone" jurors. Siripongs, 35 F.3d at 1322. We stated that it was "immaterial" that petitioner had to use peremptory challenges to excuse jurors that the trial court should have excused for cause because the petitioner did not exhaust all of his peremptory challenges. Id. at 1322. We also stated: "Moreover, the loss of peremptory challenges is not a due process violation." Id.
In Martinez-Salazar, we distinguished Si-ripongs stating: "Siripongs cannot stand for the proposition that the loss of a peremptory challenge never violates due process because Ross and Baker make clear that some such losses do indeed violate due process." Martinez-Salazar, 146 F.3d at 658. The petitioner in Siripongs "could suffer no due process violation because he did not exhaust all of his peremptory challenges and hence his right was not 'denied or impaired' in any way." Id. Further, Siripongs alleged a Sixth Amendment violation, not a violation of his due process rights under the Fifth Amendment. Id.
We concluded in Martinez-Salazar that the erroneous denial of peremptory chal lenges can constitute a due process violation under the Fifth Amendment. Because the due process requirement of the Fifth Amendment is incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment, the first question we confront in this state habeas case is whether the erroneous denial of peremptory challenges provided for by California law violated Vansickel's due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.
California Code of Civil Procedure § 231 creates a statutory right to twenty peremptory challenges when a defendant faces a sentence of death or life imprisonment. Vansiekel was entitled to twenty peremptory challenges and he only received ten. This state right to peremptory challenges is a state-created liberty interest protected by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. "[T]he failure of a state to abide by its own statutory commands may implicate a liberty interest protected by the Fourteenth Amendment against arbitrary deprivation by a state." Fetterly v. Paskett, 997 F.2d 1295, 1300 (9th Cir.1993); see also Moran v. Godinez, 57 F.3d 690, 698 (9th Cir.1994) ("the denial or misapplication of state procedures that results in the deprivation of a substantive right will implicate a federally recognized liberty interest.").
Applying these principles, we conclude that Vansickel's federal constitutional rights were violated. See Martinez-Salazar, 146 F.3d at 658 ("[D]ue process would be violated if a trial court permitted a defendant to exercise fewer than the number of peremptory challenges authorized by law."); Hines v. Enomoto, 658 F.2d 667 (9th Cir.1981) (holding denial of half of the peremptory challenges authorized by statute violates a defendant's due process rights).
Vansiekel, however, failed to timely object to the denial of his statutory allotment of peremptories in state court. By failing to object, he procedurally defaulted on the federal constitutional claim he raises in this habeas proceeding.
B. Procedural Default
Federal habeas review of a claim is barred in all cases where a state prisoner has defaulted his federal claim in state court pursuant to an adequate and independent state procedural rule. Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 750, 111 S.Ct. 2546, 115 L.Ed.2d 640 (1991). In order to preclude federal review, a state court must have relied on a procedural bar" as the basis for its disposition of the case. Harris v. Reed, 489 U.S. 255, 261-62, 109 S.Ct. 1038, 103 L.Ed.2d 308 (1989). "[A] procedural default does not bar consideration of a federal claim on either direct or habeas review unless the last state court rendering a judgment in the case 'clearly and expressly' states that its judgment rests on a state procedural bar." Id. at 263, 109 S.Ct. 1038.
To determine whether Vansickel's claim was procedurally barred, we look to the California Court of Appeal's opinion because it is the last reasoned state court opinion. See Ylst v. Nunnemaker, 501 U.S. 797, 803, 111 S.Ct. 2590, 115 L.Ed.2d 706 (1991). The California Court of Appeal found that defense counsel failed to contemporaneously object, and as a result Vansiekel had to establish prejudice. The court cited to California law that an error in limiting peremptory challenges, if timely and properly raised, is reversible per se. See People v. Yates, 34 Cal.3d 644, 654, 669 P.2d 1, 194 Cal.Rptr. 765 (1983). However, where a defendant fails to timely object, his conviction will not be reversed unless he demonstrates prejudice. See People v. Caro, 46 Cal.3d 1035, 1046-47, 761 P.2d 680, 251 Cal.Rptr. 757 (1988). The California Court of Appeal applied the prejudice standard of miscarriage of justice under California law, and determined that Vansick-el could not establish prejudice.
Because the California court found Van-sickel's claim procedurally barred under state law, to obtain habeas relief under feder al law he must demonstrate cause and prejudice.
C. Cause and Prejudice
If a claim is procedurally barred by an adequate and independent state ground, as it is in the present case, in appropriate circumstances a federal court may still review the merits of the defaulted claim. "The doctrine of procedural default is based on comity, not jurisdiction, and the federal courts retain the power to consider the merits of procedurally defaulted claims." Harmon v. Ryan, 959 F.2d 1457, 1461 (9th Cir.1992). Federal habeas review is barred, however, unless the habeas 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, 111 S.Ct. 2546.
1. Cause
The existence of cause for a procedural default "must ordinarily turn on whether the prisoner can show that some objective factor external to the defense impeded counsel's efforts to comply with the State's procedural rule." Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478, 488, 106 S.Ct. 2639 (1986). Ineffective assistance of counsel is cause for procedural default, but "[ajttorney error short of ineffective assistance of counsel does not constitute cause." Id. at 492.
We are presented with a rather unusual instance of claimed ineffective assistance because both the prosecutor and the court shared in defense counsel's error. Nevertheless, Vansickel argues that his counsel's ignorance of the law and resulting failure to object to the loss of half of his allotted peremptory challenges constitutes ineffective assistance.
Attorney inadvertence or ignorance of the law does not establish cause for a procedural default. Murray, 477 U.S. at 486-87, 106 S.Ct. 2639; Correll v. Stewart, 137 F.3d 1404, 1416 (9th Cir.1998) ("The mere ignorance or inadvertence of [defense] counsel does not furnish sufficient cause to excuse procedural default."); but cf. Garrison v. McCarthy, 653 F.2d 374, 378 (9th Cir.1981) (stating that "in cases of attorney inadvertence or ignorance, a lesser showing of incompetency of counsel should be sufficient for 'cause.' ").
In the present case, it appears defense counsel's ignorance of the law probably would not constitute cause to excuse the procedural default. But even if it would, we hold that Vansickel cannot establish prejudice because there is no reasonable probability that but for counsel's error, the result of the trial would have been different. See White v. Lewis, 874 F.2d 599, 604 (9th Cir.1989).
2. Prejudice
Vansickel asks us to apply the prejudice standard set forth in Hines v. Enomoto, 658 F.2d 667 (9th Cir.1981). Hines was denied half of his allotted peremptory challenges because his attorney failed to recognize that Hines was entitled to twenty-six peremptories rather than the normal thirteen. Id. at 671. On habeas review, Hines's claim was procedurally barred because his counsel failed to object in state court. Id. at 673. We applied a cause and prejudice analysis to Hines's claim. We held that in order to establish prejudice, he had to "demonstrate that his state trial counsel would have challenged another juror or jurors had he been aware of the remaining challenges." Id. at 674.
If we were to measure prejudice under the Hines standard, Vansickel would indeed be able to demonstrate prejudice. Defense counsel had placed an asterisk next to Juror Franks's name and the trial court was persuaded that he would have challenged Franks if he had been aware of the remaining challenges. However, Hines was decided in 1981 prior to the Supreme Court's decision in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).
Strickland held that to establish prejudice, a habeas petitioner must demonstrate "a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceedings would have been different. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome." Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052. We also consider whether "the result of the proceedings was fundamentally unfair or unreliable." Lockhart v. Fretwell, 506 U.S. 364, 368, 113 S.Ct. 838, 122 L.Ed.2d 180 (1993).
Vansickel has not demonstrated that if he had been allowed to use additional perempto-ries to strike Juror Franks or to attempt to put two other persons from the jury pool on the jury, the outcome of his case would have been different. The evidence against Van-sickel was overwhelming. He was found at the murder scene with the murder weapon in his hand. He admitted to his former girlfriend that he had shot Howard. In the letters he wrote in jail, he stated that he fabricated the story about Dan. Further, at trial he conceded that he had, in fact, shot Howard. There is no "reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceedings would have been different." Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052.
In sum, Vansickel failed to demonstrate that the denial of peremptory challenges "had a substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury's verdict." Brecht, 507 U.S. at 619, 113 S.Ct. 1710.
D. Automatic Reversal
We distinguish this case from our recent opinions holding that erroneous denial of a peremptory challenge requires automatic reversal. See Martinez-Salazar, 146 F.3d 653; United States v. Annigoni, 96 F.3d 1132 (9th Cir.1996). Both Martinez-Salazar and An-nigoni are direct federal appeal cases in which the defendants timely objected in. the district court to the erroneous limitation of their peremptory challenges.
In Annigoni, the district court erroneously refused to allow Annigoni to use one of his peremptory challenges to strike a potential juror. Annigoni, 96 F.3d at 1136. We held that the erroneous denial of a criminal defendant's right of peremptory challenge in a federal trial requires automatic reversal. Id. at 1134.
In Martinez-Salazar, the defendant was forced to use one of his peremptory challenges to strike a juror after the court erroneously refused to strike the juror for cause. 146 F.3d at 655. In accordance with Annigo-ni, we held that the error required automatic reversal. Id. at 659. See also United States v. Turner, 558 F.2d 535, 538 (9th Cir.1977) (holding that the denial of peremptory challenges requires automatic reversal without a showing of prejudice).
Unlike Annigoni, Martinez-Salazar, and Turner, Vansickel's case is not a direct federal 'appeal where we review the error after a contemporaneous objection has been made. Vansickel is before us on habeas review of his state court conviction after he failed to make a timely objection to the error in state court. The applicable analysis for this state court procedural default is cause and prejudice. Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72, 85-87, 97 S.Ct. 2497, 53 L.Ed.2d 594 (1977). Applying this analysis, we conclude Vansickel failed to establish prejudice.
II
CONCLUSION
Although we hold that Vansiekel's federal due process rights were violated by the erroneous denial of half of the peremptory challenges to which he was entitled under California law, his failure to timely object precludes our consideration of whether automatic reversal would apply to his conviction. Because Vansickel procedurally defaulted his federal constitutional claim in state court, he is required to establish cause and prejudice to excuse his state court default. He has not done so.
AFFIRMED.
. Section 231(a) reads: "In criminal cases, if the offense charged is punishable with death, or with imprisonment in the state prison for life, the defendant is entitled to 20 and the people 20 peremptory challenges." Cal.Civ.Proc.Code § 231(a) (West 1997).
. The district court relied upon a report and recommendation from the magistrate judge. The court agreed with the magistrate judge's determination that there was a due process violation and procedural default, but disagreed with the magistrate judge's conclusion that there was cause and prejudice to overcome the procedural bar.
. Hines was decided prior to the Supreme Court's decision in Ross v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 81, 108 S.Ct. 2273, 101 L.Ed.2d 80 (1988) which held that the Sixth Amendment does not provide any constitutional right to peremptory challenges. In Hines, the court assumed that the defendant's due process rights would be violated because denial of peremptory challenges would violate the Sixth Amendment.
. This analysis is similar to the prejudice analysis applied by the California Appellate Court. The appellate court applied the "miscarriage of justice" standard and concluded that it was not reasonably probable that Vansickel would have received a more favorable result if there had been no error. In light of the entire record and the overwhelming evidence against Vansickel, the error did not result in a miscarriage of justice.