Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02321/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02321-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1

16-cv-2321-LAB-AGS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Steven Doyle BURTON,

Petitioner,

v.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO,

Respondent.

Case No.: 16-cv-2321-LAB-AGS

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

TO DENY A WRIT OF HABEAS 

CORPUS

Petitioner Steven Burton claims that his state conviction arose from an illegal

warrantless search. At the time of his arrest, however, Burton was subject to a “Fourth 

Amendment Waiver” probation condition that allowed warrantless searches. But Burton 

argues that this “Fourth Waiver” condition was merely a clerical error in his conviction 

paperwork. He is wrong. At least, he has not offered any evidence that would undermine 

the unambiguous court record. Since Burton’s entire argument is built upon this 

unsupported factual foundation, his habeas petition must fail.

BACKGROUND

In 2013, Burton was convicted of assault with a deadly weapon and reckless driving, 

and was sentenced to one day of custody and three years of probation. (ECF No. 8-3, at 8.) 

His probationary sentence included a “Fourth Amendment Waiver,” which required Burton 

to submit to a search of his “person, vehicle, place of residence, property, [and] personal 

Case 3:16-cv-02321-LAB-AGS Document 11 Filed 11/02/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
2

16-cv-2321-LAB-AGS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

effects . . . at any time with or without a warrant, and with or without reasonable cause, 

when required by a Probation Officer or other law enforcement officer[.]” (Id.) Burton 

never appealed his conviction, sentence, or probationary conditions (see ECF No. 8-4, at 1), 

but he now claims that the assault conviction and the Fourth Waiver condition were both 

clerical errors.

Several months after the assault conviction, police officers began investigating 

Burton based on a tip that he was selling cocaine base.1(ECF No. 1, at 25.) An officer 

personally observed Burton engage in two apparent hand-to-hand drug transactions. 

Shortly after the second one, that officer and several others—who were all aware of 

Burton’s Fourth Waiver condition—detained him and conducted a probation search. (Id.; 

ECF No. 8-3, at 10, 12, 14-15.) They discovered a plastic bag of cocaine base squeezed 

between his butt cheeks. (ECF No. 1, at 27-28.) Later, Burton pleaded guilty to possession 

of cocaine base for sale and was sentenced to four years in county jail, with one year 

suspended. (ECF No. 8-4, at 1; ECF No. 8-5, at 11.)

As to this latter conviction, Burton filed a habeas petition in California state court, 

raising the same arguments he asserts here. That is, he claims that: (1) the warrantless 

search violated his Fourth Amendment rights because he was not in fact subject to a Fourth 

Waiver condition, and (2) his attorney coerced him into pleading guilty by incorrectly 

informing him that he had a prior conviction for assault with a deadly weapon, with a 

Fourth Waiver condition. The California courts denied Burton’s collateral attack (ECF 

Nos. 8-4, 8-6), and so he now turns to the federal courts for relief.

DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standard

Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, this Court may not disturb 

a state court’s conviction unless petitioner shows that it was the result of “a decision that 

 

1 All the facts surrounding Burton’s search and arrest are taken from the law 

enforcement reports that Burton attached to his habeas petition. The Court provides these 

facts as background, but does not rely on them for any legal conclusions.

Case 3:16-cv-02321-LAB-AGS Document 11 Filed 11/02/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
3

16-cv-2321-LAB-AGS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal 

law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). 

“A state court’s decision can involve an ‘unreasonable application’ of Federal law if it 

either 1) correctly identifies the governing rule but then applies it to a new set of facts in a 

way that is objectively unreasonable, or 2) extends or fails to extend a clearly established 

legal principle to a new context in a way that is objectively unreasonable.” Hernandez v. 

Small, 282 F.3d 1132, 1142 (9th Cir. 2002). The AEDPA’s provisions “create an 

independent, high standard to be met before a federal court may issue a writ of habeas 

corpus to set aside state-court rulings.” Uttecht v. Brown, 551 U.S. 1, 10 (2007).

B. The Alleged Clerical Errors: Fourth Waiver and Assault Conviction

All of Burton’s habeas arguments hinge on his claim that his 2013 conviction 

documents contain two crucial clerical errors: a Fourth Waiver condition and a conviction 

for assault with a deadly weapon. He swears that this conviction was only for reckless 

driving, which he believes would not normally include a Fourth Waiver condition.

But the court documents themselves do not suggest that these entries were in error. 

For example, Burton’s misdemeanor judgment reflects that on November 12, 2013, he was 

placed on a “Fourth Amendment Waiver” for his three-year probationary term, and his 

criminal history report likewise shows that for this same case he was on a “Fourth Waiver” 

that expired on November 11, 2016. (Compare ECF No. 1, at 23, with id. at 32.) The 

misdemeanor judgment reflects two counts of conviction: Count 1 is for California Penal 

Code § 245(a)(1) (assault with a deadly weapon), and Count 4 is for California Vehicle 

Code § 23103(a) (reckless driving). (ECF No. 1, at 23.) The criminal history report also 

reflects two convictions in this case: misdemeanor “PC245(a)(1)” and “CT.4 WET 

RECKLESS.” (ECF No. 1, at 32.)

In the face of this clear record, Burton provides no evidence whatsoever to support 

his clerical-error theory. No plea agreement. No plea hearing transcript. No dismissal order. 

Nothing. Thus, this Court must conclude that the conviction documents are accurate. See 

28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1) (“[A] determination of a factual issue made by a State court shall 

Case 3:16-cv-02321-LAB-AGS Document 11 Filed 11/02/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
4

16-cv-2321-LAB-AGS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

be presumed to be correct,” unless the habeas petitioner rebuts “the presumption of 

correctness by clear and convincing evidence.”); Lackawanna Cty. Dist. Att’y v. Coss, 532 

U.S. 394, 403 (2001) (holding that “once a state conviction is no longer open to direct or 

collateral attack in its own right because the defendant failed to pursue those remedies 

while they were available (or because the defendant did so unsuccessfully), the conviction 

may be regarded as conclusively valid.”); cf. United States v. Allen, 153 F.3d 1037, 1041 

(9th Cir. 1998) (“To overcome the presumption [of regularity] and bar the use of a prior 

conviction for sentence enhancement, the defendant must make an affirmative showing 

that the prior conviction is invalid.” (alterations and quotation marks omitted)).

Because Burton’s criticisms of his search and his attorney’s performance are based 

entirely on his “clerical error” claim—which has no merit—his habeas petition should be 

denied. As a result, the Court need not address the State’s various procedural defenses.

C. No Need for an Evidentiary Hearing

“A habeas petitioner is entitled to an evidentiary hearing if: (1) the allegations in his 

petition would, if proved, entitle him to relief; and (2) the state court trier of fact has not, 

after a full and fair hearing, reliably found the relevant facts.” Phillips v. Woodford, 267 

F.3d 966, 973 (9th Cir. 2001) (emphasis omitted). “[I]f the record refutes the applicant’s 

factual allegations or otherwise precludes habeas relief, a district court is not required to 

hold an evidentiary hearing.” Schriro v. Landrigan, 550 U.S. 465, 474 (2007). As 

previously noted, the record refutes Burton’s factual allegations, and therefore this Court 

need not hold an evidentiary hearing.

D. Certificate of Appealability

Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases states that “[t]he district court 

must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the 

applicant.” A certificate of appealability should issue as to those claims on which a 

petitioner makes a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(2). The standard is satisfied if “jurists of reason could disagree with the district 

court’s resolution of [the] constitutional claims” or “conclude the issues presented are 

Case 3:16-cv-02321-LAB-AGS Document 11 Filed 11/02/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
5

16-cv-2321-LAB-AGS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 

322, 327 (2003). The Court recommends that no certificate of appealability be issued.

Burton has not made a substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right because both

of his arguments are based on an inaccurate factual premise.

CONCLUSION

The Court recommends that Burton’s habeas petition be DENIED without an 

evidentiary hearing and that no certificate of appealability be issued. Upon being served 

with a copy of this report, the parties have 14 days to file any objections. See Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 72(b)(2). Upon being served with any objections, the party receiving such objections has 

14 days to file any response. See id.

Dated: November 2, 2017

Case 3:16-cv-02321-LAB-AGS Document 11 Filed 11/02/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5