Court Opinion

ID: 9762777
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 02:30:54.057224+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:37.399159
License: Public Domain

CORRIGAN, J., Concurring.
I concur in the disposition of this case and In re Zamudio Jimenez (2010) 50 Cal.4th 951 [114 Cal.Rptr.3d 605, 237 P.3d 1004], because it appears the petitions were filed in reliance on this court’s informal practice of accepting them. However, I strongly believe we should no longer allow the filing of “shell” habeas corpus (sometimes referred to as “habeas”) petitions. Shell petitions are not true petitions at all, but merely placeholders designed to toll the federal statute of limitations. Further, shell petitions serve no state interest. California’s obligation to ensure due process for capital defendants is addressed by our state’s established appellate and habeas corpus procedures. Perversely, the practice of accepting shell petitions ill serves both defendants and the public. Because it eliminates any urgency to secure counsel, capital inmates may languish without representation for several years. The practice also burdens this court and adds greatly to the long delays in death penalty proceedings. It is our obligation to find qualified *943counsel for capital habeas corpus cases. We should seriously consider how we are discharging that obligation in light of the delays the majority describes. It is not, however, our proper role to help one class of convicted inmates evade a federal statute of limitations. I therefore dissent from the majority’s holding approving shell petitions.
I. Background
Congress’s enactment of a one-year statute of limitations for federal habeas corpus petitions created special problems for death row inmates in California. Although capital inmates have a statutory right to counsel for both their state (Gov. Code, § 68662) and federal (18 U.S.C. § 3599(a)(2)) habeas claims, it has typically taken many years, even after the judgment is final on appeal, before a lawyer can be found who will represent a capital inmate in state postconviction proceedings. This delay does not compromise the inmate’s state habeas petition, because we presume such a petition to be timely so long as it is brought within three years after the appointment of habeas corpus counsel. (Cal. Supreme Ct., Policies Regarding Cases Arising from Judgments of Death, policy 3, std. 1-1.1.) However, the short limitations period mandated for federal habeas petitions by AEDPA1 differs from California’s substantially more generous timeliness rules. Because of endemic delays in our state’s appointment of capital habeas counsel, the federal statute of limitations can expire before an inmate can “stop the clock” with a properly filed state habeas petition. (28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2) (section 2244(d)(2)) [providing that the federal limitations period is tolled during the time “a properly filed application for State post-conviction or other collateral review” is pending].) When AEDPA was first passed, California’s capital inmates who wished to preserve their federal remedies faced a difficult choice. They could either file a state habeas petition without the benefit of counsel, to stop the federal clock, or file a timely federal habeas petition but risk its dismissal for the failure to exhaust all claims in state court. (See Rose v. Lundy (1982) 455 U.S. 509 [71 L.Ed.2d 379, 102 S.Ct. 1198].)2
The first shell petition filing was allowed in December 2001, in the case of In re Taylor, S102652. Taylor’s habeas counsel had withdrawn relatively *944late in the proceedings, and the Habeas Corpus Resource Center (HCRC) refused to accept an appointment unless we allowed it to file a shell petition. After informal discussions with HCRC and with no input from the Attorney General, we agreed to accept a placeholder, or “shell,” petition in that one case. The sole purpose of the shell petition was to toll the federal statute of limitations while HCRC investigated and prepared a substantive state habeas petition. The shell petition procedure thus originated as an informal accommodation made to secure representation under the unusual circumstances of that single case. It was adopted after discussions with only one side, and it has never been approved in a formal rule. Nevertheless, the practice of filing shell petitions has become almost routine in capital cases. We have accepted more than 50 shell habeas petitions in the ensuing nine years. Yet, of all these shell petitions, only two have been litigated to conclusion in this court. Our habeas docket has become the extended home for an increasing number of capital cases, and the problem is likely to worsen. Michael Laurence, executive director of HCRC, stated at oral argument that there are currently 322 capital inmates in California without habeas corpus counsel. Two-thirds of these cases are advancing toward finality because a lawyer has been appointed for the direct appeal.
II. The Shell Petition Procedure Disserves California’s Interests
This court does continue to have great difficulty finding counsel to represent capital inmates in habeas matters. However, allowing capital inmates to delay federal postconviction consideration through a sham procedure is not an appropriate response. The shell petition procedure not only puts an unreasonable strain on this court, it also undermines California’s strong interest in the finality of its judgments. Furthermore, it runs directly contrary to our own well-established precedent.
Our cases have long emphasized that habeas corpus is an extraordinary remedy “and that the availability of the writ properly must be tempered by the necessity of giving due consideration to the interest of the public in the orderly and reasonably prompt implementation of its laws and to the important public interest in the finality of judgments.” (In re Robbins (1998) 18 Cal.4th 770, 778 [77 Cal.Rptr.2d 153, 959 P.2d 311]; see also In re Clark (1993) 5 Cal.4th 750, 764 [21 Cal.Rptr.2d 509, 855 P.2d 729].) We have developed a variety of procedural rules governing proper use of the writ to serve these important public interests and to “protectQ the integrity of our own appeal and habeas corpus process.” (In re Robbins, at p. 778, fn. 1, italics omitted.) One such rule is this court’s long-standing refusal to consider successive petitions, whether they raise claims previously urged or state new grounds for relief that were known when a previous petition was filed. (In re Clark, at pp. 769-770; In re Horowitz (1949) 33 Cal.2d 534, 546-547 [203 P.2d 513].)
*945As Justice Baxter explained for the majority in Clark, the rule against successive petitions is grounded in considerations of fundamental importance: “When a habeas corpus petition is denied on the merits, the court has determined that the claims made in that petition do not state a prima facie case entitling the petitioner to relief. A successive petition presenting additional claims that could have been presented in an earlier attack on the judgment is, of necessity, a delayed petition. [There is] no persuasive reason for routinely permitting consideration of the merits of such claims. Were we to do so we would sanction a practice which unreasonably delays execution of judgment and imposes undue burdens on the state both in responding to claims made in delayed petitions and in marshalling stale evidence when retrial is necessary. Successive petitions also waste scarce judicial resources as the court must repeatedly review the record of the trial in order to assess the merits of the petitioner’s claims and assess the prejudicial impact of the constitutional deprivation of which he complains. [][] Willingness by the court to entertain the merits of successive petitions seeking relief on the basis of the same set of facts undermines the finality of the judgment. Moreover, such piecemeal litigation prevents the positive values of deterrence, certainty, and public confidence from attaching to the judgment. The values that inhere in a final judgment are equally threatened by petitions for collateral relief raising claims that could have been raised in a prior petition.” (In re Clark, supra, 5 Cal.4th at p. 770.)
A corollary of the rule against successive petitions is the rule that all known claims must be brought in a single, timely habeas corpus petition. (In re Clark, supra, 5 Cal.4th at pp. 780-782, 797.) A petitioner cannot delay, then seek to add claims to a petition at a later date. We explained in Clark that, if a petitioner “is aware of facts adequate to state a prima facie case for habeas corpus relief,” the petition should include a claim based on these facts “even if the claim is not fully ‘developed.’ ” (Id. at p. 781.) Nor should a petitioner expect the court to delay action on a petition to permit future amendment. “The court must and will assume . . . that a petition for writ of habeas corpus includes all claims then known to the petitioner.” (Id. at pp. 780-781.) Further, we expressly cautioned in Clark that “[t]he inclusion in a habeas corpus petition of a statement purporting to reserve the right to supplement or amend the petition at a later date has no effect.” (Id. at p. 781, fn. 16, italics added.)
The shell petition procedure is in obvious conflict with these important rules. It was created and has been perpetuated to benefit only one side, in postconviction litigation in a different forum. It is even more remarkable for the court to exempt death row inmates from the long-standing rule against successive habeas petitions, considering that these are the prisoners with the most incentive to delay.
*946Shell petitions will inevitably contribute to the lengthy delays our state experiences in resolving capital cases. Petitioner advised this court that Louisiana has also adopted a shell petition procedure for tolling the AEDPA statute of limitations. (See State ex rel. Weary v. State (La. 2009) 12 So.3d 968, 969, fn. 3.) Notably, however, two justices of the Louisiana Supreme Court recently complained of excessive delays and urged the state to reconsider its use of the shell procedure. They wrote: “The delays caused in post-conviction proceedings by filing ‘shell’ applications and the granting of continuances have unreasonably delayed the finality of death penalty cases. This practice has effectively stopped the State from carrying out the sentence in capital cases at a great expense to the State. It appears our courts have had little effect in discouraging these delaying techniques. It is probably appropriate now for the Legislature to address this aspect of post-conviction proceedings if this State is going to continue to have capital sentences.” (Id. at p. 970 (conc. & dis. opn. of Knoll, J.).)
Not only do shell petitions exacerbate delay, they serve no state interest. The Legislature has granted capital inmates a right to counsel. (Gov. Code, § 68662.) This court has adopted generous rules for compensating these attorneys and generous timelines for them to litigate state habeas petitions. (See Cal. Supreme Ct., Payment Guidelines for Appointed Counsel Representing Indigent Criminal Appellants in the California Supreme Court, guideline 2.) According to our internal estimates, the average cost to pay private counsel for handling the direct appeal in a capital case ranges from $180,000 to $250,000. In the rare instances when an attorney handles both the appeal and the habeas corpus petition, the median fixed-fee compensation is around $283,000, with an additional $50,000 provided to reimburse investigation expenses. The typical cost to pay a second private attorney for preparing a separate state habeas petition ranges from $230,000 to $250,000 in fixed-fee compensation, or up to $300,000 in hourly compensation. Thus, when different attorneys handle the appeal and state habeas petition, their compensation can easily reach or exceed $500,000.
Shell petitions do nothing whatsoever to promote the state’s interest in providing counsel to habeas corpus petitioners, nor its interest in having all capital habeas claims decided first by California courts.3 Moreover, the United States Supreme Court has made clear that a state’s delay in appointing state habeas counsel does not make the state accountable for an inmate’s failure to satisfy the statute of limitations for seeking federal habeas relief. In Lawrence v. Florida (2007) 549 U.S. 327, 336-337 [166 L.Ed.2d 924, 127 S.Ct. 1079], a capital prisoner argued he was entitled *947to equitable tolling because an attorney who was appointed and supervised by the state courts had miscalculated the federal limitations period. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, noting that the petitioner had not alleged the state prevented him from hiring his own attorney or representing himself. {Id. at p. 337.)4 The court observed: “[A] State’s effort to assist prisoners in postconviction proceedings does not make the State accountable for a prisoner’s delay. ... It would be perverse indeed if providing prisoners with postconviction counsel deprived States of the benefit of the AEDPA statute of limitations.” (Lawrence, at p. 337, italics added.)
The shell procedure is essentially a gesture of largesse from this court. Its sole purpose is to help capital inmates preserve their ability to launch additional collateral attacks on their convictions in federal court.5 It is true that the AEDPA statute of limitations puts unrepresented capital inmates in a difficult position. However, California already provides its own more generous system for habeas review. The federal government is free to regulate its own system, and, in fact, the federal courts have developed their own procedural solution to the problem at hand.
III. The Federal “Stay and Abeyance” Procedure Is Preferable
Shortly after AEDPA went into effect, Justice Stevens identified the procedural conflict created by the intersection of AEDPA’s one-year statute of limitations and the high court’s holding in Rose v. Lundy, supra, 455 U.S. 509, that habeas petitions containing any unexhausted claims must be dismissed without prejudice to refiling after the claims have been exhausted. (Duncan v. Walker (2001) 533 U.S. 167, 182-183 [150 L.Ed.2d 251, 121 S.Ct. *9482120] (conc. opn. of Stevens, J.).) Because the court in Duncan held that the limitations period is not tolled while a petition is pending in federal court, by the time a federal district court determined that some claims required exhaustion, a petitioner could find that the AEDPA statute of limitations had expired, precluding federal review of any of his claims. (Duncan, at p. 182.) Justice Stevens remarked, “[I]n our post-AEDPA world there is no reason why a district court should not retain jurisdiction over a meritorious claim and stay further proceedings pending the complete exhaustion of state remedies. Indeed, there is every reason to do so . . . .” (Id. at pp. 182-183.) When confronted with this precise problem four years later, the Supreme Court unanimously approved the stay and abeyance procedure. In Rhines v. Weber, supra, 544 U.S. 269, the court held that when a state prisoner files a “mixed” habeas corpus petition in federal court containing some claims that have been exhausted and some that have not, the district court has discretion to stay proceedings on the mixed petition and hold it in abeyance while the petitioner returns to state court to litigate the unexhausted claims. Although mixed petitions should not be stayed indefinitely, particularly in capital cases where petitioners have a strong incentive to delay, the court warned that “it likely would be an abuse of discretion for a district court to deny a stay and to dismiss a mixed petition if the petitioner had good cause for his failure to exhaust, his unexhausted claims are potentially meritorious, and there is no indication that the petitioner engaged in intentionally dilatory litigation tactics.” (Id. at p. 278.)
The stay and abeyance procedure approved by the Supreme Court offers California’s capital inmates an established means of preserving their federal habeas claims. A federal statute created the timeliness problems these prisoners face, and the federal courts have crafted a solution. Rather than unilaterally inventing our own special procedures that may or may not allow capital inmates to evade the AEDPA statute of limitations, we should end the shell petition practice and direct these inmates to follow the federal stay and abeyance path.
This approach would require capital inmates to file a habeas petition in federal district court within one year after their conviction is final. Our difficulty finding attorneys to represent these prisoners in habeas matters would not necessarily be an obstacle to this filing because capital inmates have a statutory right to counsel in federal postconviction proceedings. (18 U.S.C. § 3599(a)(2).) This right to counsel attaches before the filing of a federal habeas petition, and it is invoked when a capital prisoner files an application in federal court seeking appointment of an attorney. (McFarland v. Scott (1994) 512 U.S. 849, 856-857 [129 L.Ed.2d 666, 114 S.Ct. 2568].) The legal obligation would therefore be on the federal system to appoint counsel in time to prepare the federal habeas petition.
*949For a petitioner to benefit from the stay and abeyance procedure, the federal petition would have to contain a mixture of exhausted and unexhausted claims. In addition to exhausted claims, which were litigated to conclusion on direct appeal, petitioners would have to allege the factual basis for possible unexhausted claims they might wish to litigate in federal habeas proceedings. New claims for relief in an amended petition do not relate back to the original petition, thus making them timely, unless they arise from the same “ ‘conduct, transaction, or occurrence’ ” set forth in the original petition. (Mayle v. Felix (2005) 545 U.S. 644, 649 [162 L.Ed.2d 582, 125 S.Ct. 2562].) Certainly, it might be difficult to identify all potential hew claims within a year after an inmate’s conviction has become final on appeal. Indeed, the timeframe may be even shorter if the district court is slow to appoint counsel. But these limits on the availability of the federal writ were imposed by Congress and the federal courts. It is remarkable that we would formally adopt a procedure designed solely to help capital prisoners evade them. Further, we should be mindful that capital cases take years to litigate in the trial court and many more years to resolve by direct appeal. It is not unreasonable to expect that a capital defense team at least contemplate potential habeas claims during this lengthy period.
IV. Conclusion
If California’s system worked as intended, habeas counsel would be appointed for capital defendants during the litigation of their direct appeals. Such counsel would have ample time to investigate, prepare, and file state habeas petitions within a year after conclusion of the appellate process, thus tolling the deadline for filing a federal habeas petition under section 2244(d)(2). That should continue to be our goal.
Our rules do not penalize prefiling delays in capital habeas proceedings. Because a state habeas petition is presumed timely if it is filed within six months after filing of the appellant’s reply brief or three years after the appointment of habeas counsel, whichever is later (Cal. Supreme Ct., Policies Regarding Cases Arising from Judgments of Death, policy 3, std. 1-1.1), capital inmates have little incentive to demand an expeditious appointment of habeas counsel. Perhaps the time has come to change this aspect of our rules. However, we should resist the suggestion that this court is somehow obligated to help capital prisoners delay the federal limitations period because we have had difficulty appointing counsel for their state habeas petitions. Congress created clear consequences for delay when it enacted AEDPA’s one-year statute of limitations for federal habeas petitions. Nevertheless, *950without authorization by statute or rule of court, the majority now approves of an informally adopted procedure designed expressly to thwart this congressional aim. This court should not abandon its general rules and fashion a sham procedure solely to enable a small set of habeas petitioners to evade federal law.
Baxter, J., concurred.

Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (Pub.L. 104-132, Apr. 24, 1996, 110 Stat. 1214; see 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A)).

The federal courts have since resolved this dilemma by adopting a stay and abeyance procedure. Rather than dismissing a petition containing unexhausted claims, the district court now has discretion to stay action on it while the petitioner returns to state court to exhaust all remedies. (See Rhines v. Weber (2005) 544 U.S. 269 [161 L.Ed.2d 440, 125 S.Ct. 1528].)

Even if the conflicting timeliness rules required capital prisoners to file habeas corpus petitions in federal court first, federal exhaustion rules would still ensure that the claims were first addressed in a state forum.

The court assumed without deciding that 28 United States Code section 2244(d) permits equitable tolling. (Lawrence v. Florida, supra, 549 U.S. at p. 336.) Recently, the court confirmed that the AEDPA statute of limitations is subject to equitable tolling. (Holland v. Florida (2010) 560 U.S._[177 L.Ed.2d 130, 130 S.Ct. 2549].)

We do not even know if the gambit will be successful. It remains uncertain whether federal courts will ultimately construe a shell petition to be “properly filed” for purposes of statutory or equitable tolling. (Compare Voravongsa v. Wall (1st Cir. 2003) 349 F.3d 1, 7 [under R.I. law, pro se prisoner’s application for appointment of counsel in state habeas corpus proceedings was not a “properly filed application” sufficient to toll the AEDPA statute of limitations] with Isley v. Arizona Dept. of Corrections (9th Cir. 2004) 383 F.3d 1054, 1055-1056 [under Ariz. law, prisoner’s filing of a “Notice of Post-Conviction Relief,” which invoked the right to counsel, was sufficient to toll the federal statute of limitations], overruled on a related point in Summers v. Schriro (9th Cir. 2007) 481 F.3d 710; see also Jihad v. Hvass (8th Cir. 2001) 267 F.3d 803 [holding that the inability to retain counsel is not an extraordinary circumstance justifying equitable tolling].) Although the federal courts will likely defer to our state rules in determining whether a petition has been properly filed (see Artuz v. Bennett (2000) 531 U.S. 4 [148 L.Ed.2d 213, 121 S.Ct. 361]), a capital habeas petition is not considered “pending” under federal law unless it seeks an adjudication on the merits. (Woodford v. Garceau (2003) 538 U.S. 202, 206-207 [155 L.Ed.2d 363, 123 S.Ct. 1398].) Shell petitions, do not satisfy this requirement because they seek only to delay an adjudication on the merits.