Frank v. Chavez
65 F. Supp. 3d 677
N.D. Cal.2014Background
- Petitioner Raymond Frank challenged his 2003 Contra Costa County conviction after state appeals; sentence 60 years 4 months to life
- Trial evidence showed Michael suffered blunt force head injury/shaken baby syndrome with extensive injuries and eventual death
- Evidence included prior belt discipline of older children and Meiers’ testimony about assaults
- Trial admitted objections to a police search as consciousness-of-guilt evidence; claim of constitutional error
- California Court of Appeal found error harmless; federal court reviewed under AEDPA standards
- Petitioner moved for judicial notice and to revive Claims 1-7, arguing actual innocence; court denied
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of evidence of objections to search | Frank argues it violates due process by showing consciousness of guilt | Frank's rights were not violated; error harmless under Brecht/AEDPA | Harmless error; no relief granted |
| Unanimity instruction for Count One | Dellinger-like need for unanimity on multiple acts | Only one discrete act relevant to 273ab; no unanimity instruction required | No error; instruction adequate under state law and federal review |
| Discharge of Juror No. 6 for cause | Due process/unanimity right potentially violated | No federal liberty interest in unanimous verdict; good-cause discharge supported by record | Not violated; no habeas relief |
| Sentence of 25 years to life under §273ab | Sentence grossly disproportional to the crime | Court found not grossly disproportionate given circumstances and prior offenses | Not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law |
| Motions for judicial notice and to revive Claims 1-7 | Actual innocence supports revival of defaulted claims | Schlup standard not satisfied; evidence not credible to excuse default | Denied; no revival or notice |
Key Cases Cited
- Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609 (1965) (Silence claims not admissible to prove guilt)
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967) (Harmless-error standard for constitutional claims in direct review)
- Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 (1993) (Habeas harmlessness standard, substantial and injurious effect)
- Dunckhurst v. Deeds, 859 F.2d 110 (9th Cir. 1988) (State-law-based due process instruction requirements; standards applied on review)
- Parker v. Matthews, 132 S. Ct. 2148 (2012) (Circuit precedent not ‘clearly established federal law’ under AEDPA)
- People v. Russo, 25 Cal.4th 1124 (2001) (Unanimity requirements in conspiracy-like or multi-act contexts (Cal. law))
- People v. Frank, 2007 WL 1366490 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (State court interpretation of 273ab and unanimity; not controlling federal law)
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000) (Unreasonable application of clearly established law; factual determinations)
- Mitchell v. Esparza, 540 U.S. 12 (2003) (AEDPA legal standard for clearly established law)
- Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003) (Review of factual determinations; AEDPA scope)
- Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63 (2003) (Gross disproportionality review for Eighth Amendment)
- Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11 (2003) (Comparison of long sentences; proportionality)
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967) (Harmless-error standard in direct appeal)