Patino v. People of the State of California, 3:19-cv-02151

Petitioner Edgar Patino was convicted in Alameda County of assault likely to cause great bodily injury, making a criminal threat, and continuous sexual abuse of a child under 14; sentenced in 2016 to 17 years, 8 months.
California Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction in 2018 and the California Supreme Court denied review; Patino then filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
Patino asserted five federal claims: (1) continuous-sexual-abuse jury instruction omitted required mens rea; (2) failure to instruct on lesser-included offense of lewd act on a child; (3) due process violation from admission of "shower" evidence regarding victim’s sister; (4) removal of Juror B2 violated impartial jury right; (5) prosecutorial misconduct in closing argument.
Court found the federal claims, liberally construed, cognizable on habeas review and that they were neither patently frivolous nor conclusory, so they warranted a response from Respondent.
Court dismissed Patino’s state-law claims (federal habeas relief unavailable for pure state-law errors).
Court granted Patino's in forma pauperis application and denied his request for appointment of counsel, concluding counsel was unnecessary given prior appellate briefing and available translation help.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Continuous-sexual-abuse jury instruction omitted mens rea	Instruction omitted required mental state, violating right to jury verdict beyond reasonable doubt	Instruction was adequate (Respondent to respond)	Court found claim cognizable and ordered Respondent to answer
Failure to instruct on lesser-included offense (lewd act)	Trial court erred by not instructing on lesser-included offense, denying fair trial	No reversible error (to be argued by Respondent)	Claim cognizable; Respondent must answer
Admission of "shower" evidence (victim's sister)	Admission deprived due process	Evidence admissible (to be argued)	Claim cognizable; Respondent must answer
Removal of Juror B2	Removal violated right to impartial jury	Removal was proper (to be argued)	Claim cognizable; Respondent must answer
Prosecutorial misconduct in closing argument	Misconduct denied fair trial	Closing was proper (to be argued)	Claim cognizable; Respondent must answer
State-law claims	State-law errors infringed rights (as alleged)	Federal habeas unavailable for pure state-law errors	State-law claims dismissed without leave to amend
Appointment of counsel	Patino requested appointed counsel due to pro se status and Spanish language issues	Counsel unnecessary: issues briefed on appeal, translation available, issues not complex	Request denied; appointment discretionary and not warranted

Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490 (9th Cir.) (standards for summary dismissal of habeas petitions)
Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191 (9th Cir.) (discretionary appointment of counsel in habeas cases)
Wilson v. Corcoran, 562 U.S. 1 (2010) (federal habeas relief limited to violations of federal law)
Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. 216 (2011) (federal habeas unavailable for state-law errors)