Hernandez v. Archuleta, 1:16-cv-02996

Background

Francis M. Hernandez was convicted in Arapahoe County of multiple offenses (including vehicular homicide and child abuse) and sentenced to an aggregate 60-year term.
After direct appeal and denial of certiorari by the Colorado Supreme Court, Hernandez filed a pro se 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas application raising seven claims.
Hernandez conceded three ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims were unexhausted, moved to stay, was denied, then withdrew those unexhausted claims.
The operative habeas petition presents four claims: (1) insufficiency of evidence for child abuse; (2) denial of impartial jury via refusal to strike a juror for cause; (3) erroneous rejection of testimonial privilege claims (common-law wife and psychologist-patient); and (4) admission of unwarned statements in violation of Miranda.
Respondents concede timeliness and exhaustion as to claims 1 and 4, argue claim 2 may not present a cognizable federal claim, and contend claim 3 is procedurally defaulted (anticipatory default) because it was presented only as a state-law issue on appeal and would now be barred by Colorado procedural rules.
The Court dismissed claim 3 with prejudice as procedurally barred and ordered Respondents to answer the merits of claims 1, 2, and 4; Hernandez may file a reply after Respondents’ Answer.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether claim 1 (insufficiency of evidence for child abuse) merits relief	Evidence was insufficient to support child abuse conviction	Evidence supported conviction (merits to be addressed by Respondents)	Not decided on Rule; claim deemed exhausted and remains for merits review — Respondents ordered to answer
Whether claim 2 (denial of impartial jury when court refused to strike a juror for cause) raises a federal constitutional issue	Trial court’s refusal denied right to an impartial jury, forcing use of a peremptory	Argues the claim may not present a cognizable federal constitutional claim	Court found claim was presented to state courts as a federal issue, exhausted, and may be reviewed on the merits
Whether claim 3 (trial court rejected testimonial privileges) was exhausted and reviewable in federal habeas	Trial court improperly rejected common-law wife and psychologist-patient privileges under Colorado law	Presented to state courts only as state-law claims; any federal presentation now would be barred as successive/abuse of process under Colo. Crim. P. Rule 35(c)(3)(VII)	Claim 3 is unexhausted as to federal law and is procedurally defaulted/anticipatorily barred; dismissed with prejudice unless cause and prejudice or actual innocence shown
Whether claim 4 (admission of statements without Miranda) is exhausted	Admission of unwarned statements violated Fifth Amendment/Miranda	Respondents concede exhaustion; merits to be answered	Claim is exhausted and remains for merits review

Key Cases Cited

Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 (U.S. 1982) (mixed habeas petitions require dismissal or stay when claims are unexhausted)
O'Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838 (U.S. 1999) (exhaustion requires presentation to the state courts)
Castille v. Peoples, 489 U.S. 346 (U.S. 1989) (fair presentation to state courts required for exhaustion)
Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270 (U.S. 1971) (substance of federal claim must be presented to state courts)
Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364 (U.S. 1995) (state courts must be alerted that prisoner is asserting federal constitutional claims)
Baldwin v. Reese, 541 U.S. 27 (U.S. 2004) (how to fairly present federal claims to state courts)
Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (U.S. 1991) (procedural default doctrine; cause and prejudice standard)
Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106 (10th Cir. 1991) (pro se complaints are construed liberally but courts are not advocates)