Mayle, Deneice (Warden) v. Felix, Jacoby (06/23/2005)

Question presented: When a habeas petitioner challenging a state judgment amends his petition to include a new claim, does the amendment relate back to the date of the filing of his petition and thus avoid the one-year statute of limitations, 28 U.S.C. " 2244(d)(1), so long as the new claim stems from the prisoner's trial, conviction, or sentence?

BY ITIR YAKAR, MEDILL NEWS SERVICE

Jacoby Lee Felix was convicted of first degree murder and second degree robbery in 1995 and sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.

During his trial, he argued that the admission into evidence of his confession to the police violated his 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination, since the police, he claimed, used intimidating and coercive tactics to force him to confess.

He also argued that his 6th Amendment right to confront witnesses testifying against him was violated at trial, since the witness later claimed not to remember his original testimony against Felix.

The court allowed both statements to be heard at trial, leading to his conviction.

The California Court of Appeal rejected his arguments and in August 1997, the California Supreme Court denied review of his case.

Within the one-year statute of limitations allowed under the federal Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), Felix filed a habeas corpus petition in district court in May 1998. In this petition, he only raised the 6th Amendment Confrontation Clause claim that he was being unlawfully imprisoned, since the lower court allowed testimony of a witness he could not cross-examine.

In January 1999, after the statute of limitations had expired, Felix filed an amendment to his petition, now raising the 5th Amendment claim. He argued that the state court violated his right to due process and protection against self-incrimination by admitting his allegedly coerced confession. He also claimed for the first time that his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise this claim on appeal.

The state argued that Felix's latter habeas claim involving 5th Amendment protection and ineffective counsel did not "relate back" to the original habeas petition, which had only raised the 6th Amendment Confrontation Clause claim, and therefore should be barred after the statute of limitations expired.

Under Rule 15 (c)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, amendments to a petition will be considered to have been filed on the same date as the original petition as long as they arise out of the same "conduct, transaction or occurrence" as in the original petition.

Such amendments are considered to "relate back" to the original petition.

The district court rejected Felix's argument that the coerced confession claim related back to the initial petition.

In a 2-to-1 decision, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals panel reversed, reasoning that Felix's coerced confession claim "arises from the same transaction – his trial and conviction in state court."

"Both claims assert that the conviction was tainted by unconstitutional evidence introduced at his trial," wrote Justice William Canby for the panel. "The fact that the claims differ does not mean that they arise from different occurrences."

In seeking Supreme Court review, California Supervising Deputy Attorney General Ward Campbell said the 9th Circuit's interpretation of "relation back" is too broad and "would allow petitioners to put in extremely incomplete petitions, park them there (in court)" and take their time to add new claims.

Such a broad interpretation would allow defendants to bypass the one-year statute of limitations and the goal of the AEDPA, Campbell said.

Amendments that do not stem from issues raised in the original petition would also unduly burden the state, since the state would not have fair notice of the new issue raised until the defendant decides to file an amendment, the state argued.

Yet Felix's attorneys argued in his brief that they are not asking for a broad interpretation but merely the full application of Rule 15(c)(2) to habeas petitions. Both of Felix' claims "arise out of a discrete step in the litigation process – his trial, and attack the same actor – the state trial judge who admitted the unconstitutional statements into evidence," and thus relate back to the original petition. The state therefore had fair notice of Felix's arguments, they said.

On Jan. 7, 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court accepted review in the case and allowed Felix to have the case heard without cost.

On June 23, 2005, the Court held 7-2 that Felix's amended habeas petition did not relate back when he asserted a new ground for relief. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote the majority opinion. Justices David Souter and John Paul Stevens dissented.