Villafuerte

Villafuerte v. Stewart

Good Law
142 F.3d 1124·98 Daily Journal DAR 4071·1998 WL 196241·1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 7770·98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2964
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitApril 20, 1998No. 98-80303California1,647 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Fletcherthompsonnelson, J.

Arizona death row inmate Jose Roberto Villafuerte has filed a petition, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (b)(3), for an order of this court authorizing him to file a successive petition for writ of habeas coipus in the district court. For a description of the crime and prior proceedings, see Villafuerte v. Stewart, 111 F.3d 616 (9th Cir.1997), and State v. Villafuerte, 142 Ariz. 323 , 690 P.2d 42 (1984).

Section 2244(b) requires the dismissal of claims not presented in prior petitions unless they rely on either a new rule of constitutional law or a showing of actual innocence. Claiming to meet these requirements, Villaf-uerte proposes to raise three issues in the district court, if authorized to do so:

*1125 1. Violation of Villafuerte’s rights under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, April 24,1968, 21 U.S.T. 77.

2. Lack of a fair hearing on his second petition for Post-Conviction Relief due to the racial bias of the judge; and

3. Newly discovered evidence providing a basis to assert his actual innocence.

We will address each proposed issue in turn.

A. The Vienna Convention

It is undisputed that Arizona officials did not notify Villafuerte of his right to consult with…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.