38 F.4th 849
9th Cir.2022Background
- Guillory was tried in San Diego for a shooting and related drug/weapons offenses; during voir dire the court restricted seating and allegedly excluded some of his family/supporters.
- On direct appeal, Guillory argued his Sixth Amendment public-trial right was violated by exclusion of family during jury selection; the California Court of Appeal rejected the claim on the merits, finding the record lacked evidence of a non-de minimis exclusion.
- After the direct appeal, Guillory filed state habeas petitions that added three declarations (his and two family members’) alleging seats were available but they were excluded; the superior court denied relief (finding acquiescence) and the court of appeal denied relief on procedural grounds (untimeliness and preclusion).
- Guillory then filed federal habeas under 28 U.S.C. § 2254; the district court dismissed, treating the public-trial claim as procedurally defaulted due to the state court of appeal’s timeliness ruling.
- The Ninth Circuit concluded the district court erred: the original claim decided on direct appeal was exhausted and not procedurally defaulted, but the augmented claim (with new declarations) was procedurally defaulted as untimely and Guillory failed to show cause to excuse the default. The Ninth Circuit vacated and remanded for merits review of the original claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Guillory) | Defendant's Argument (State/Allen) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Guillory’s public-trial claim is procedurally defaulted | The public-trial claim was exhausted on direct appeal and may be reviewed in federal court | The state court of appeal’s later procedural denial of the habeas petition bars federal review | Split: original claim on direct appeal not defaulted; augmented habeas claim is defaulted |
| Whether the district court erred by treating the claim as procedurally barred | The district court improperly treated the entire claim as defaulted without distinguishing the versions | The district court correctly applied state procedural bar to preclude federal review | Court: district court erred; must address merits of claim decided on direct appeal because that decision rested on the merits, not a procedural bar |
| Whether the augmented claim (new declarations) is barred and if cause exists to excuse default | The new evidence justified state habeas and any delay; Guillory was diligently attempting to obtain declarations | The court of appeal properly applied California timeliness rule; Guillory failed to show external cause for delay | Court: augmented claim is procedurally defaulted for untimeliness; Guillory failed to show cause to excuse default |
| Whether the state court’s invocation of multiple procedural grounds defeats adequacy of the bar | The state court’s invocation of both Waltreus and timeliness is inconsistent and therefore not a clearly adequate bar | State: invoking both bars does not create inconsistency; timeliness is an independent adequate rule here | Court: no inconsistency; both can co-exist and timeliness independently bars the augmented claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Walker v. Martin, 562 U.S. 307 (timeliness rule as an adequate state procedural bar)
- Ylst v. Nunnemaker, 501 U.S. 797 (presumption that unexplained affirmance rests on same grounds as last reasoned opinion)
- Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (procedural default doctrine and cause-and-prejudice standard)
- Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478 (cause must be an external objective impediment)
- Dickens v. Ryan, 740 F.3d 1302 ( Ninth Circuit principles on procedural default distinctions)
- Cone v. Bell, 556 U.S. 449 (decisions refusing readjudication on collateral review indicate prior full consideration)
- Lambright v. Stewart, 241 F.3d 1201 (state invocation of contradictory procedural bars can preclude a clear default finding)