Opinion
Case Number 08-0471 CW, DEATH PENALTY CASE.
July 22, 2010
ORDER
Petitioner Steven Bonilla has been sentenced to death by the Superior Court of California for the County of Alameda. Although his state habeas case is currently being litigated, he has filed a "protective petition" in this Court pursuant to Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408 (2005).
Pursuant to Habeas Local Rule 2254-25, this Court earlier granted his request for appointment of counsel and referred this action to the Northern District's Selection Board for the recommendation of qualified counsel to represent Petitioner in these proceedings. Pursuant to Habeas Local Rule 2254-24(a), Petitioner's concurrent request for a stay of execution was also granted.
On July 15, 2010 Petitioner filed a pleading containing numerous requests and motions. For the following reasons, all of Petitioner's requests and motions are DENIED.
To begin with, Petitioner notifies the Court of what he claims is an alleged fraud concerning a plea agreement with Bradley Keyes. Keyes, who was involved in the murder for which Petitioner was convicted and sentenced to death, cooperated with prosecutors and testified at Petitioner's trial. This issue, as well as other issues Petitioner refers to regarding his capital trial, are not ripe for this Court to consider, given, among other things, that his state habeas matter is still pending in the state court. Thus, the Court DENIES Petitioner's requests regarding these issues, including his request that the Court schedule an immediate hearing and his request that he be appointed advisory counsel to assist him regarding these matters.
In addition, Petitioner renews his request for aVaughn-indexing of the documents produced in another case, C-02-636 MHP. For the reasons set forth in this Court's order of April 30, 2010, Petitioner's request is DENIED.
Finally, Petitioner moves to withdraw his request for appointed counsel for his federal habeas petition and moves to represent himself with advisory counsel of his choice. Petitioner does not, however, have a right to self-representation during habeas proceedings. See Martinez v. Court of Appeals of California, 528 U.S. 152 (2000) (holding that the right to represent oneself at trial pursuant to Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975), does not extend to appellate proceedings). Petitioner has offered no compelling reasons as to why he would be better served representing himself in this complex capital habeas matter and, thus, this Court DENIES Petitioner's motion.
For the foregoing reasons, all of Petitioner's requests and motions contained in his pleading of July 15, 2010 are DENIED
IT IS SO ORDERED.