Opinion ID: 781943
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The third state petition.

Text: 39 There is no question that Koerner raised the issue of the ineffectiveness of his trial counsel in failing to file a direct appeal in his third state petition. In his reply brief to this Court, Koerner's former appellate counsel advanced two arguments as to why the Nevada Supreme Court's denial of this petition does not bar litigation of the issue in federal court: first, that the Nevada courts' orders demonstrate that the issue was raised in the previous two petitions, and second, that Koerner has shown cause and prejudice to avoid any apparent procedural default. Koerner himself supplemented the former argument by drawing our attention, in his Rule 28(j) letter and at oral argument, to Valerio v. Crawford. We find that we need not reach the question of cause and prejudice, because we find that the Nevada Supreme Court's order is ambiguous as to whether the issue was litigated in the first two petitions or was procedurally barred. 40
41 Before we turn to the applicability of Valerio to the situation presented here, we address the question of whether any argument based on Valerio has been waived because it was not raised in the opening brief filed by Koerner's former appellate counsel. In general, [w]e `will not ordinarily consider matters on appeal that are not specifically and distinctly argued in appellant's opening brief.' United States v. Ullah, 976 F.2d 509, 514 (9th Cir.1992) (quoting Miller v. Fairchild Indus., Inc., 797 F.2d 727, 738 (9th Cir. 1986)). Nonetheless, 42 [t]hree main exceptions to that rule exist. First, we will review an issue not present in an opening brief for good cause shown, Fed. R.App. P. 2, or if a failure to do so would result in manifest injustice. United States v. Loya, 807 F.2d 1483, 1487 (9th Cir.1987). Second, [w]e have discretion to review an issue not raised by appellant ... when it is raised in the appellee's brief. In re Riverside-Linden Investment Co., 945 F.2d 320, 324 (9th Cir.1991). Third, we may review an issue if the failure to raise the issue properly did not prejudice the defense of the opposing party. 43 Id. at 514 (second alteration in original). We find that, in this case, good cause is evident. The record reveals a breakdown in communication, and disagreements as to what arguments should be advanced, between Koerner and his appointed appellate counsel. Shortly after terminating representation by his counsel, Koerner alerted us to the applicability of Valerio, and focused on it in his oral argument. It is apparent that, had Koerner been representing himself, he likely would have made this argument from the outset. 44 To hold that Koerner has waived this argument would place an unrepresented habeas petitioner in an extremely difficult position, especially if, as is often the case, such petitioner has some knowledge of the pertinent legal issues in his or her case. An indigent habeas petitioner has the option of requesting the appointment of counsel to assist in his or her case. If such counsel could waive irrevocably a client's arguments — even after counsel is terminated and even when the argument is raised by the petitioner him or herself — the petitioner would be taking a great risk in requesting the appointment of counsel. We find that the imposition of that risk is inconsistent with the policy underlying the rules allowing for the appointment of counsel. Under the narrow circumstances presented here, where the petitioner has terminated his appointed counsel and subsequently made additional arguments himself, we hold that this Court may exercise its discretion to consider such arguments. 3 45
46 Turning to the merits, we find that Valerio v. Crawford squarely controls this case. In Valerio, an en banc panel of this Court reviewed the district court's rejection of several habeas claims as procedurally defaulted. See 306 F.3d at 771-75. The Nevada district court had determined that eighteen of the petitioner's claims had been raised before and could not be relitigated pursuant to Nevada Revised Statutes § 34.810. Id. at 771-72. The Nevada Supreme Court determined that only some of these eighteen claims had been litigated previously, but determined that dismissal was proper because the other claims could have been raised previously and were procedurally barred. Id. at 772. The en banc court held that, because it failed to specify which claims were barred for which reasons, the Nevada Supreme Court `did not clearly and expressly rely on an independent and adequate state ground.' Id. at 775 (quoting Coleman, 501 U.S. at 735, 111 S.Ct. 2546). Accordingly, none of the eighteen claims could be held to be procedurally defaulted. Id. 47 The factual parallels between the two cases are remarkable. As in Valerio, the Nevada district court here determined that the issues raised in Koerner's petition already had been raised in prior petitions. As in Valerio, the Nevada Supreme Court here did not agree entirely with the district court, but held that Koerner's claims either had been raised previously or, if they had not been raised previously, were now procedurally defaulted under Nevada Revised Statutes § 34.810. As in Valerio, it is impossible to tell from the Nevada Supreme Court's opinion here which issues were barred as previously litigated, and which were barred as procedurally defaulted. We need not expand the rule of Valerio to hold that Koerner's case falls within it. By failing to specify which claims were barred for which reasons, the Nevada Supreme Court `did not clearly and expressly rely on an independent and adequate state ground.' Valerio, 306 F.3d at 774-75 (quoting Coleman, 501 U.S. at 735, 111 S.Ct. 2546). Koerner's direct appeal claim is not procedurally defaulted. 48
49 Ordinarily, our analysis would end here. The facts of this case are indistinguishable from those underlying a recent en banc decision of this Court, and there has been no intervening Supreme Court decision to undercut the controlling nature of this decision. Our dissenting colleague, however, suggests both that Valerio is in direct conflict with Supreme Court caselaw and that Valerio is distinguishable from this case. Because we believe that we cannot ignore Valerio, that the principle underlying the holding of Valerio is consistent with Supreme Court caselaw, and that no exception to this holding is applicable here, we are compelled to answer the arguments made by the dissent. 50 We begin by stating the long-standing principle that, as a general rule, one three-judge panel of this court cannot reconsider or overrule the decision of a prior panel. An exception to this rule arises when an intervening Supreme Court decision undermines an existing precedent of the Ninth Circuit, and both cases are closely on point. United States v. Gay, 967 F.2d 322, 327 (9th Cir.1992) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). `[I]n the absence of intervening Supreme Court precedent, one panel cannot overturn another panel, regardless of how wrong the earlier panel decision may seem to be.' Hart v. Massanari, 266 F.3d 1155, 1171-72 (9th Cir.2001) (quoting Montesano v. Seafirst Commercial Corp., 818 F.2d 423, 425-26 (5th Cir.1987)). Thus, even if we agreed that Valerio contravenes Supreme Court precedent, we would still be bound to follow it. 51 Nonetheless, if we were to determine that our interpretation of Valerio is in conflict with Supreme Court precedent, we would examine any possible alternative interpretations that would be consistent with the high Court's caselaw. We therefore consider whether our application of Valerio may be reconciled with Coleman v. Thompson and other relevant cases. 52 Although the Supreme Court has long applied the independent and adequate state grounds doctrine in habeas cases, see, e.g., Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72, 87-88, 97 S.Ct. 2497, 53 L.Ed.2d 594 (1977), the seminal case regarding the resolution of ambiguous state rulings is Harris v. Reed, 489 U.S. 255, 109 S.Ct. 1038, 103 L.Ed.2d 308 (1989). In Harris, the petitioner had applied for post-conviction relief from the Illinois state courts. Id. at 257, 109 S.Ct. 1038. An Illinois court dismissed his petition, stating that the petitioner's claims were waived because they could have been presented earlier but had not been, but also considering and rejecting the merits of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Id. at 258, 109 S.Ct. 1038. The Supreme Court found that the Illinois court's ruling did not constitute independent and adequate state grounds with respect to the ineffective assistance claim, holding that a procedural default does not bar consideration of a federal claim on ... 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 (internal quotation marks omitted). As the Supreme Court later explained, 53 After Harris, federal courts on habeas corpus review of state prisoner claims... will presume that there is no independent and adequate state ground for a state court decision when the decision fairly appears to rest primarily on federal law, or to be interwoven with the federal law, and when the adequacy and independence of any possible state law ground is not clear from the face of the opinion. 54 Coleman, 501 U.S. at 734-35, 111 S.Ct. 2546 (quoting Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032, 1040-41, 103 S.Ct. 3469, 77 L.Ed.2d 1201 (1983)). 55 In Coleman, however, the Court limited this presumption. There, the habeas petitioner had filed a state post-conviction petition, and upon its denial he had appealed to the Virginia Supreme Court. Virginia had moved to dismiss the appeal as untimely, and the Virginia Supreme Court, with explicit references to the motion to dismiss, issued an order stating that the motion to dismiss is granted. Id. at 727-28, 111 S.Ct. 2546. The petitioner argued that because the Virginia Supreme Court's order did not clearly and expressly identify the state procedural rule in dismissing the appeal, the Harris presumption required a finding that the Virginia court did not rely on independent and adequate state grounds. Id. at 735-36, 111 S.Ct. 2546. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, finding that the Harris presumption does not apply in those cases where the relevant state court decision does not fairly appear to rest primarily on federal law or to be interwoven with such law. Id. at 740, 111 S.Ct. 2546. Instead, in such cases, federal habeas courts must ascertain for themselves if the petitioner is in custody pursuant to a state court judgment that rests on independent and adequate state grounds. Id. at 736, 111 S.Ct. 2546. This inquiry was not difficult in Coleman; in fact, the petitioner concede[d] that the Virginia Supreme Court dismissed his state habeas appeal as untimely, applying a state procedural rule. Id. at 740, 111 S.Ct. 2546. 56 Coleman gives little guidance on the proper approach to state court decisions that do not rely on federal law grounds, but for which the applicable state law ground is ambiguous or unclear. Under the facts of Coleman, the Court did not need to consider this issue, because the petitioner had conceded that the state court had applied a particular state procedural rule. All that Coleman teaches is that no presumption applies where no federal law basis for the decision is evident, and that the federal courts must make their own inquiry. 57 Against this backdrop we find Calderon v. United States District Court (Bean), 96 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir.1996), the case upon which Valerio relies. In Bean, the panel considered whether a denial of a state post-conviction petition by the California Supreme Court barred federal habeas relief. Id. at 1129. With respect to thirty-nine of the petitioner's claims, the California court held that they were procedurally barred in that they were or could have been, but were not, raised on appeal or were waived by failure to preserve them at trial. Id. at 1128. In the face of this ambiguity, the panel did not apply the Harris presumption that the decision rested on federal law grounds; such a rule would contravene the express holding of Coleman. Instead, the panel considered the adequacy of the state law grounds at issue. Id. at 1129. One of the grounds relied upon — that the issues actually were raised on appeal — would not bar federal review. Id. at 1131. The other ground — that the issues were not raised on appeal and therefore were waived — likely would bar federal review. Id. Finding that the California Supreme Court's order provides no basis upon which to apply the latter ground, the panel determined that it was too ambiguous to bar federal review. Id. 58 Neither Bean nor Valerio impermissibly applies the Harris presumption where no federal law ground is evident. Instead, both cases stand for the proposition that where a state court decision affords no basis for choosing between a state law ground that would bar federal review, and one that would not, that decision cannot bar federal review. Coleman instructs federal courts to ascertain for themselves if the petitioner is in custody pursuant to a state court judgment that rests on independent and adequate state grounds. 501 U.S. at 736, 111 S.Ct. 2546. But if it is impossible for the federal court to ascertain whether such grounds have been relied upon, the state court decision cannot bar federal review. 59 The dissent suggests that such an unresolvable ambiguity exists only where, after reviewing the record, the federal court cannot guess at which grounds might be applicable to which claims. We think this formulation is overstated. Under some circumstances, a federal court will be able to resolve an ambiguous order. For example, if the order affirms a previous lower court order that relies on the same grounds and specifies which grounds are applicable to which claims, there is no reason to assume that the appellate court applied different grounds to different claims. See Ylst v. Nunnemaker, 501 U.S. 797, 803, 111 S.Ct. 2590, 115 L.Ed.2d 706 (1991) (Where there has been one reasoned state judgment rejecting a federal claim, later unexplained orders upholding that judgment or rejecting the same claim rest upon the same ground.). But where a state supreme court order expressly relies on different grounds than the lower court decision that it affirms, yet fails to explain which ground applies to which claim — as in both Valerio and the instant case — federal courts generally will not be able to resolve the resulting ambiguity. 60 Even if we were to attempt to usurp the role of the state courts and determine which state law rules apply to which claims, we could not do so in this case. As noted above, although Koerner's claim that he was denied a direct appeal was not fairly presented in either of his first two state post-conviction petitions, both petitions — and especially the second petition — raised the facts necessary to bring this issue to the attention of the Nevada courts. Furthermore, the Nevada courts have the discretion to address constitutional issues sua sponte. The orders of the Nevada courts are not sufficiently detailed to allow a determination of whether, in fact, the direct appeal claim was ever considered on the merits, but we are satisfied that it could have been. 61 When a claim could have been considered on the merits in an earlier proceeding, and one of the bases for the denial of the claim in a later proceeding is that the claim was in fact litigated previously, we cannot reject this possibility. None of the Nevada court decisions mentions the failure of Koerner's trial counsel to file a direct appeal. This is the case even in the Nevada Supreme Court's order dismissing the third petition; even though the claim was raised expressly in the third petition, the portion of the order that appears to catalog the claims raised in the petition omits any mention of this claim. We thus have no more basis for concluding that the order dismissing the third petition grouped this claim among those that were procedurally defaulted than for concluding that the orders dismissing the first and second petitions considered the claim on the merits. 62 Finally, we note another relevant aspect of Bean, Valerio, and the instant case. In each case, the state court's reasons for rejecting the relevant claims were mutually inconsistent. A claim cannot be both previously litigated and procedurally defaulted; either it was raised in a prior proceeding or it was not. These cases do not allow for the possibility that the state court relied on both grounds for dismissing the relevant claims; only one ground could apply to each claim. The question is not whether the state relied primarily on a particular ground, but on which mutually exclusive ground the state court relied. When either ground is a possibility, the choice between them is wholly arbitrary. It is not our role to make such a choice. 63 The judgment of the district court is therefore reversed as to the dismissal of Ground Five as procedurally barred, and affirmed as to all other grounds. The case will be remanded to the district court for consideration of the merits of Ground Five. Each party shall bear its own costs. 64 REVERSED IN PART, AFFIRMED IN PART, AND REMANDED.