United States District Court, E.D. California
K. SINGLETON, JR. SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Carbajal, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed
a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus with this Court
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Carbajal is in the custody
of the California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation and incarcerated at California State Prison,
Solano. Respondent has answered, and Carbajal has not
September 25, 2012, the trial court granted, over defense
counsel's objection, the prosecution's motion to
consolidate charges from two complaints lodged against
Carbajal. In a consolidated information, Carbajal was charged
with two counts of making a criminal threat (Counts 1 and 3),
and assault with a deadly weapon (Count 2). The information
further alleged as to Count 1 that Carbajal personally used a
deadly weapon (a machete) and that Carbajal had been
previously convicted in 2007 of making terrorist threats and
in 2010 for assault with a deadly weapon. The Count 1 charges
resulted from an incident involving Saysana Souksavath
occurring on December 14, 2011, and had been the subject of a
previous case that had ended in a mistrial. On direct appeal
of his conviction, the California Court of Appeal recounted
the following facts underlying the Count 1 charge against
facts of [Carbajal's] offense are not at issue and may be
resided in south Sacramento. In December 2011, he stood in
the front yard of his next door neighbor's residence
swinging a long knife and yelling. After retreating to his
house, he reemerged and again swung the knife. [Carbajal]
told his neighbor that he wanted to cut him "like this,
" and motioned to the knife.
City Police officers arrested [Carbajal] and transported him
to the Sacramento County Jail.
v. Carbajal, No. C073292, 2014 WL 660141, at *1
(Cal.Ct.App. Feb. 21, 2014).
2 and 3 were lodged in connection with an incident occurring
on July 29, 2012, and involving Carbajal's brother, Rudy
Carbajal. Defense counsel moved to sever Count 1 from the
remaining counts. The trial court denied the motion, and
Carbajal proceeded to a jury trial on all counts. During
deliberations, the trial court was informed that the jury had
reached verdicts on Counts 1 and 3 but were "stuck"
on Count 2. The parties agreed to take partial verdicts. The
jury returned a not guilty verdict as to Count 3 and a guilty
verdict as to Count 1. The jury also found true that Carbajal
personally used a deadly weapon. The jury said that they were
deadlocked as to Count 2, and the court declared a mistrial
as to that count. In a bench trial, Carbajal admitted the two
alleged prior convictions. The court subsequently sentenced
Carbajal to a term of 12 years' imprisonment, consisting
of 6 years (twice the upper term) for criminal threats, 5
years for the prior serious felony, and one year for the
prior prison term. The court also ordered Carbajal to pay,
among other fines, booking and classification fees.
counsel, Carbajal appealed his conviction, arguing that the
trial court improperly imposed booking and classification
fees. On February 21, 2014, the Court of Apeal unanimously
affirmed the judgment against Carbajal in all respects.
Carbajal, 2014 WL 660141, at *3. The record does not
indicate that Carbajal petitioned for review in the
California Supreme Court.
then filed in the California Supreme Court a pro se
petition for habeas relief. In that petition, Carbajal argued
that he had received the ineffective assistance of trial and
appellate counsel. The Supreme Court summarily denied the
petition on June 25, 2014.
then filed an additional pro se petition for habeas
relief in the California Supreme Court. In his second
petition, Carbajal claimed that: 1) the trial court erred in
consolidating his two cases; 2) his right to due process
rights were violated because the prosecutor failed to
disclose to the jury that prior testimony used to impeach
Souksavath, who testified as a prosecution witness, was from
a previous trial that resulted in a mistrial; 3) trial
counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the
prosecutor's failure to disclose that information to the
jury; and 4) appellate counsel was ineffective for only
challenging fines and fees rather than challenging the
underlying conviction on direct appeal. The Supreme Court
denied the petition without comment on May 20, 2015.
timely filed apro se Petition for a Writ of Habeas
Corpus to this Court on May 22, 2015. See 28 U.S.C.
pro se Petition before this Court, Carbajal raises
the four claims he unsuccessfully raised to the state courts
by habeas petition. First, he argues that he was deprived of
due process when the trial court consolidated his two cases.
He next contends that his right to due process was violated
by the prosecutor's failure to disclose that prior
testimony admitted in his trial came from a previous trial
that ended in a mistrial. In Ground 3, Carbajal claims that
his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to
the prosecutor's failure to disclose ...