(HC) Rankin v. Honea

Opinion

GEORGE DAVID RANKIN, No. 2:16-cv-0556 MCE AC Petitioner, v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Respondent. Petitioner proceeds pro se with an application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his 2014 conviction for possession of controlled substances. See ECF No. 1 (petition). Respondent has answered the petition, ECF No. 13, and petitioner did not file a traverse. For the reasons that follow, the undersigned recommends that the petition be denied in its entirety pursuant to Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465 (1976). Petitioner was charged in Butte County Superior Court with possession of a controlled substance for sale in violation of Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11378. He moved to suppress the evidence against him, and the suppression motion was heard at the same time as the preliminary hearing. CT 114-117; RT 32-68.1 The facts adduced at the suppression hearing are summarized 1 “CT” refers to the Clerks Transcript on Appeal; “RT” refers to the Reporter’s Transcript on Appeal. in the opinion of the California Court of Appeal, Lodged Doc. 4, and need not be reproduced here. The motion to suppress was denied. RT 68-69. Petitioner renewed the motion during jury selection, and presented additional evidence. CT 238; Clerk’s Augmented Transcript at 1-4. The renewed motion was denied. CT 254-256. Petitioner proceeded to trial, and the jury returned a guilty verdict on February 14, 2014. CT 308. Petitioner was sentenced to a six years and eight months imprisonment. CT 326. Petitioner appealed the denial of his suppression motion, and his conviction was affirmed on September 29, 2015. Lodged Doc. 4. The Court of Appeal found that petitioner had been initially detained without reasonable suspicion, but that petitioner’s probationary status “attenuated the taint” of the unlawful detention and justified denial of the motion to suppress. Id. Petitioner sought review in the California Supreme Court, which was denied without comment or citation on January 13, 2016. Lodged Docs. 5, 6. There were no applications for state collateral relief. The federal habeas petition was timely filed. ECF No. 1. II. Petitioner’s Claims Petitioner states three putative claims for relief: (1) petitioner was unlawfully detained, (2) the ensuing search was the product of the unlawful detention, and (3) the taint of the illegal detention was not attenuated by petitioner’s probation status. ECF No. 1 at 5-9. He has attached a copy of his petition for review in the California Supreme Court. Id. at 28-56. The appellate materials confirm that the claims petitioner forwards here are the same Fourth Amendment claims that he presented to the state courts. III. Petitioner’s Claims Are Not Cognizable in Federal Habeas Where a state has provided an opportunity for full and fair litigation of a Fourth Amendment claim, a state prisoner may not be granted federal habeas corpus relief on the ground that the evidence obtained in an unconstitutional search or seizure was introduced at trial. Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 482, 493 (1976). Stone effectively renders Fourth Amendment claims unreviewable in federal habeas, except in cases where the state failed to provide a forum for litigation of the issue. Because petitioner actually litigated his Fourth Amendment claims in the superior court and in the California Court of Appeal, and presented them to the California Supreme Court, it cannot be disputed that he had a full and fair opportunity in state court to seek a remedy for any and all Fourth Amendment violations. See Stone, 428 U.S. at 494, n. 37. “The relevant inquiry is whether petitioner had the opportunity to litigate his claim, not whether he did in fact do so or even whether the claim was correctly decided.” Ortiz-Sandoval v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 891, 899 (9th Cir. 1996). Because petitioner had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the validity of his detention and the subsequent search in state court, there is no basis for federal habeas relief. See Myers v. Rhay, 577 F2d 504, 508 (9th Cir. 1978) (even assuming that an arrest is invalid due to an unconstitutionally issued arrest warrant, Stone bars relief); Terrovona v. Kincheloe, 912 F. 2d. 1176, 1178 (9th Cir. 1990) (Stone bars federal review of a state prisoner’s warrantless arrest claim); Gordon v. Duran, 895 F.2d 610, 613-14 (9th Cir. 1990) (California’s statutory framework for litigating suppression issues satisfies the “full and fair opportunity” requirement under Stone v. Powell). Because relief is categorically unavailable, there is no need for review of the state courts’ resolution of the constitutional issue under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). Indeed, this court’s review is prohibited by the Supreme Court’s pronouncement in Stone that state courts are the final arbiters of claims that evidence, and resulting convictions, have been obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment. See Newman v. Wengler, 790 F.3d 876 (9th Cir. 2015) (Stone v. Powell doctrine survives AEDPA, and precludes federal habeas review of state court resolution of Fourth Amendment issues). For the reasons explained above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be denied. These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(l). Within twenty-one days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned WAS 2 AU VOU UNIS EWN RUC OI eT eS AY Tt

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” If petitioner files objections, he shall also address whether a certificate of appealability should issue and, if so, why and as to which issues. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991), DATED: June 23, 2020 ~ Chtten— Lhane ALLISON CLAIRE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE