Opinion ID: 1390030
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 15

Heading: The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996

Text: [The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996] AEDPA [] govern[s] any habeas appeal commenced after its effective date, April 24, 1996, without regard to when the petition was filed. Cooper v. Calderon, 255 F.3d 1104, 1107 (9th Cir.2001); Cooper v. Calderon, 274 F.3d 1270, 1272 (9th Cir.2001). In Petitioner's previous request to file a successive petition in 1998, the Ninth Circuit determined that AEDPA governed stating: We must first determine whether AEDPA applies to Cooper's new petition. In United States v. Villa-Gonzalez, 208 F.3d 1160, 1163-64 (9th Cir.2000), we held that AEDPA's provisions governing second or successive petitions apply to a new petition filed after the date of AEDPA's enactment, even if the original petition was filed before. Under Villa-Gonzalez, we must apply AEDPA to Cooper's new petition. Cooper, 274 F.3d at 1272. Petitioner's third federal habeas corpus petition in this Court was filed on April 1, 2004, long after the effective date of AEDPA, April 24, 1996. As such, the provisions of AEDPA govern this latest habeas petition. See Penry v. Johnson, 532 U.S. 782, 792, 121 S.Ct. 1910, 150 L.Ed.2d 9 (2001) (Because [petitioner] filed his federal habeas petition after the enactment of [AEDPA], the provisions of that law govern the scope of our review.); Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 326, 117 S.Ct. 2059, 138 L.Ed.2d 481 (1997) (AEDPA applies to all habeas petitions filed after April 24, 1996).
The Ninth Circuit's authorization which enabled Petitioner to file a successive habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) with this Court does not relieve Petitioner of his burden of demonstrating compliance with those requirements before this Court. Petitioner's burden in seeking authorization from the Ninth Circuit was merely to make a prima facie showing of compliance with § 2244(b) for gatekeeper purposes. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(C). Now that he is before this Court, he must actually show that each claim in his pending petition satisfies the statutory requirements. Tyler v. Cain, 533 U.S. 656, 661, n. 3, 121 S.Ct. 2478, 150 L.Ed.2d 632 (2001). While the gatekeeper authorization allowed Petitioner to file any and all claims in a successive petition upon a prima facie showing that any one claim satisfies the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b), Nevius v. McDaniel, 104 F.3d 1120 (9th Cir. 1996), Petitioner must now satisfy the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) as to each claim before that claim can be considered by this Court.
First, any claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus application under section 2254 that was presented in a prior application shall be dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1). The only exception that has been recognized by the Ninth Circuit to the requirement of dismissal for previously presented clams is in extremely narrow circumstances where the claim presented in the previous petition was held to be premature. Babbitt v. Woodford, 177 F.3d 744, 745(9th Cir.1999) (citing Martinez-Villareal v. Stewart, 118 F.3d 628, 630 (9th Cir.1997), aff'd, 523 U.S. 637, 118 S.Ct. 1618, 140 L.Ed.2d 849 (1998)). A claim is not newly presented merely because the petitioner offers new factual bases in support of a legal claim that has already been raised. The Ninth Circuit held that it would not consider new factual grounds in support of the same legal claim that was previously presented, reasoning as follows: A ground is successive if the basic thrust or gravamen of the legal claim is the same, regardless of whether the basic claim is supported by new and different legal arguments. . . . Identical grounds may often be proved by different factual allegations. . . .  Id. (quoting United States v. Allen, 157 F.3d 661, 664(9th Cir.1998)).
Second, even if the claim has not been previously presented in a federal habeas petition, it must nevertheless be dismissed unless it falls within one of two narrow exceptions: (A) the applicant shows that the claim relies on a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable; or (B)(I) the factual predicate for the claim could not have been discovered previously through the exercise of due diligence; and (ii) the facts underlying the claim, if proven and viewed in light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the applicant guilty of the underlying offense. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2)(A)(B). Petitioner does not rely on a new rule of Constitutional law, so his only possible claim is under the newly discovered factual predicate prong. See 28 U.S.C. 2244(b)(2)(B).

Challenges to the state court finding of facts are governed by 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(I). As to factual determinations, [i]n a proceeding instituted by an application for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court, a determination of a factual issue made by a State court shall be presumed to be correct. The applicant shall have the burden of rebutting the presumption of correctness by clear and convincing evidence. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1). The express and implied factual determinations by the state trial court and California Supreme Court are entitled to deference. Factual determinations by state courts are presumed correct absent clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 340, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1). Clear and convincing evidence within the meaning of § 2254(e) requires greater proof than preponderance of the evidence and must produce an abiding conviction that the factual contentions being advanced are highly probable. Sophanthavong v. Palmateer, 378 F.3d 859, 866 (9th Cir.2004) (quotation omitted). The presumption of correctness applies not only to express findings of fact, but also applies equally to unarticulated findings that are necessary to the state court's conclusions of mixed questions of fact and law. See Marshall v. Lonberger, 459 U.S. 422, 433, 103 S.Ct. 843, 74 L.Ed.2d 646 (1983) (application of presumption to a credibility determination which was implicit in rejection of defendant's claim). Where there are two permissible views of the evidence, a fact finder's choice between them cannot be clearly erroneous. Amadeo v. Zant, 486 U.S. 214, 226, 108 S.Ct. 1771, 100 L.Ed.2d 249 (1988)
Because each of Petitioner's claims have been raised in the California Supreme Court and denied on the merits, this Court must apply the highly deferential standard set forth in AEDPA. See Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 333, 117 S.Ct. 2059, 138 L.Ed.2d 481 (1997). Title 28, United States Code, section 2254(a), sets forth the following scope of review for federal habeas corpus claims: The Supreme Court, a Justice thereof, a circuit judge, or a district court shall entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). The standard provides: (d) An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings unless the adjudication of the claim (1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). To obtain federal habeas relief, Petitioner must satisfy either § 2254(d)(1) or § 2254(d)(2). See Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 403, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000). The threshold question is whether the rule of law was clearly established at the time petitioner's state court conviction became final. Id. at 406, 120 S.Ct. 1495. Clearly established federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States refers to the holdings, as opposed to the dicta, of this Court's decisions as of the time of the relevant state court decision. Id. at 412, 120 S.Ct. 1495; see also Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 71, 123 S.Ct. 1166, 155 L.Ed.2d 144 (2003). Ninth Circuit case law may be persuasive authority for purposes of determining whether a particular state court decision is an `unreasonable application' of Supreme Court law, and also may help us determine what law is `clearly established.' Duhaime v. Ducharme, 200 F.3d 597, 600 (9th Cir.2000). Only after the clearly established federal law is identified can the court determine whether the state court's application of that law resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of that clearly established federal law. See Lockyer, 538 U.S. at 71-72, 123 S.Ct. 1166. This Court must identify the relevant United States Supreme Court authority and then apply that law to the record in the light most favorable to the state court decision. Such an approach embodies the longstanding principle that unarticulated findings that are necessary to the state court's conclusions of mixed questions of fact and law are presumed correct. See Marshall, 459 U.S. at 433, 103 S.Ct. 843(application of presumption to credibility determination which was implicit in rejection of defendant's claim). Moreover, anything less deferential would undermine the law that federal courts avoid attributing constitutional error to the state court. Himes v. Thompson, 336 F.3d 848, 854 (9th Cir.2003); see also Woodford v. Visciotti, 537 U.S. 19, 24, 123 S.Ct. 357, 154 L.Ed.2d 279 (2003). The contrary to and unreasonable application clauses contained in 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) have distinct meanings. Williams, 529 U.S. at 404, 120 S.Ct. 1495. A decision is contrary to United States Supreme Court authority if it fails to apply the correct controlling authority, or if it applies the controlling authority to a case involving facts materially indistinguishable from those in a controlling case, but reaches a different result. Id. at 405-06, 120 S.Ct. 1495. A decision is an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law when the state court identifies the correct governing legal principle, but unreasonably applies that principle to the facts of that case. Id. at 407, 120 S.Ct. 1495. Under Williams, an application of federal law is unreasonable only if it is objectively unreasonable. Id. at 409, 120 S.Ct. 1495. Although the Ninth Circuit previously analyzed habeas cases for clear error, the Supreme Court disapproved this approach. Lockyer, 538 U.S. at 75, 123 S.Ct. 1166(rejecting Van Tran v. Lindsey, 212 F.3d 1143 (9th Cir.2000)). Rather, when a petitioner does not challenge the state court's determination of the evidence, he may receive relief only if he establishes that the state court decisions were contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States. See Price v. Vincent, 538 U.S. 634, 640-41 n. 2, 123 S.Ct. 1848, 155 L.Ed.2d 877 (2003). When there is a federal question but no controlling Supreme Court authority on point, a state court's merits determination is not contrary to any decision within the meaning of the AEDPA. Mitchell v. Esparza, 540 U.S. 12, 17, 124 S.Ct. 7, 157 L.Ed.2d 263 (2003). In the absence of controlling authority, federal courts should defer to a state court's reasonable interpretation of the Constitution. Id. at 17-18, 124 S.Ct. 7; Penry v. Johnson, 532 U.S. 782, 795, 121 S.Ct. 1910, 150 L.Ed.2d 9 (2001) (holding that a Texas court's decision was not unreasonable where there was no squarely controlling authority). An unreasonable application of federal law is different from an incorrect application of federal law. Williams, 529 U.S. at 410, 120 S.Ct. 1495; Clark v. Murphy, 331 F.3d 1062, 1067(9th Cir. 2003). A federal habeas court may not issue the writ simply because that court concludes in its independent judgment that the state court decision is wrong. See Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685, 698-99, 122 S.Ct. 1843, 152 L.Ed.2d 914 (2002); Williams, 529 U.S. at 411, 120 S.Ct. 1495. The state court decision must be affirmed unless it is objectively unreasonable. Bell, 535 U.S. at 699, 122 S.Ct. 1843; Woodford, 537 U.S. at 24, 123 S.Ct. 357. Where a state court finds a constitutional error to be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, a federal court may not grant relief unless the state court's harmless error decision is objectively unreasonable. Mitchell, 540 U.S. at 12, 124 S.Ct. 7. A state court's decision based on a factual determination will not be overturned on factual grounds unless objectively unreasonable in light of the evidence presented in the state court proceeding. Miller, 537 U.S. at 340, 123 S.Ct. 1029 (2003); 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2); Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510, 528, 123 S.Ct. 2527, 156 L.Ed.2d 471 (2003). Even if the state court fails to cite or acknowledge United States Supreme Court authority, a federal court may not grant habeas relief unless the state court's reasoning or result contradict clearly established United States Supreme Court precedent. Early, 537 U.S. at 8, 123 S.Ct. 362. The Ninth Circuit has held that where there is no reasoned state court decision on one or more issues raised in the federal petition, the federal court must conduct an independent review of the record to determine whether the state court decision was contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, controlling United States Supreme Court precedent. Delgado v. Lewis, 223 F.3d 976, 982(9th Cir.2000). A federal court must presume, of course, that state courts `know and follow the law'[.] Himes v. Thompson, 336 F.3d 848, 853 (9th Cir.2003) (citing Woodford, 537 U.S. at 24, 123 S.Ct. 357.) De novo review of a state court's adjudication is not appropriate. Id. at 854 n. 3. The deference accorded to state court decisions by AEDPA is intended to prevent federal habeas retrials and ensures that state court convictions are given effect to the extent possible under law. Bell, 535 U.S. at 693, 122 S.Ct. 1843; see Clark, 331 F.3d at 1067. The AEDPA deference standard demands that federal courts give state court decisions the benefit of the doubt. Woodford, 537 U.S. at 24, 123 S.Ct. 357.