Quintana

Quintana v. Adams

Good Law
114 F. App'x 345
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDecember 3, 2004No. 02-56644; D.C. No. CV-01-08930-HLHCalifornia251 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Quintana appeals from the denial of his habeas corpus petition. Although the district court denied him a certificate of appealability, and his request for one cited only a violation of California Penal Code section 2932, we issued a certificate of appealability as to the issue whether: “the notice of charges provided to appellant satisfies the requirements of due process.” Having reviewed the record, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Quintana failed to exhaust the federal due process claim before the California Supreme Court.

Baldwin v. Reese, 541 U.S. 27 , 124 S.Ct. 1347 , 158 L.Ed.2d 64 (2004), controls. Baldwin holds that to exhaust available state remedies a habeus corpus petitioner must “fairly present his claim in each appropriate state court ... including a state supreme court with powers of discretionary review.” Id. Quintana’s petition to the California Supreme Court alleged only violations of California Penal Code section 2932 and raised no federal due process claim. Nor does this present the situation we, as well as the Supreme Court, have left unresolved in which a state claim is coextensive with a federal due process claim, because…

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.