Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-00411/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-00411-1/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

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DARREL L. MYERS, No. CIV S-08-0411-FCD-CMK-P

Petitioner, 

vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RICH SUBIA, et al.,

Respondents.

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pending before the court is petitioner’s petition for

a writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1).

Rule 4 of the Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides for summary

dismissal of a habeas petition “[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any

exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” In the

instant case, it is plain that petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas relief. Specifically,

petitioner stated he entered a guilty plea. 

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:08-cv-00411-FCD-CMK Document 5 Filed 02/29/08 Page 1 of 3
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

2

A guilty plea which is knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made, bars any

right to later assert claims based on constitutional deprivations allegedly occurring prior to the

guilty plea. See Lefkowitz v. Newsome, 420 U.S. 283, 288 (1975) (citing Brady v. United

States, 397 U.S. 742 (1970); McMann v. Richardson, 397 U.S. 759 (1970); and Parker v. North

Carolina, 397 U.S. 790 (1970)). Thus, where the defendant pleads guilty, he may only challenge

whether the guilty plea was valid (i.e., knowing, intelligent, and voluntary). See Tollett v.

Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 267 (1973); see also Mitchell v. Superior Court for Santa Clara

County, 632 F.2d 767, 769-70 (9th Cir. 1980). This rule is known as the “Tollett rule.” 

An exception to this rule may exist where state law permits a challenge to an

adverse pre-trial ruling despite a later guilty plea. See Lefkowitz, 420 U.S. at 288 (citing

McMann, 397 U.S. at 766). This is called the “Lefkowitz exception.” In California, a

defendant may raise an issue on appeal despite a guilty plea if the defendant has filed a written

statement with the trial court setting forth the grounds for the claim and the trial court has issued

a certificate of probable cause for the appeal. See Mitchell, 632 F.2d at 771 (citing Cal. Penal

Code § 1237.5). This rule, however, does not operate as an exception to the Tollett rule. See

Mitchell, 632 F.2d at 772. The only Lefkowitz exception under California law is a statute

permitting an appeal based on an alleged Fourth Amendment violation. See id. at 771; see also

Cal. Penal Code § 1538.5. A conditional guilty plead does not fall under the Lefkowitz

exception. See Mitchell, 632 F.2d at 773. Another exception to the Tollett rule exists where the

challenge goes to “the power of the state to bring the defendant into court to answer the charges

brought against him.” Journigan v. Duffy, 552 F.2d 283, (9th Cir. 1977) (citing Blackledge v.

Perry, 417 U.S. 21, 30 (1974)). This is known as the “Journigan exception.” 

Thus, under the Tollett rule, a defendant who pleaded guilty may only raise

claims on federal habeas which challenge the validity of the plea or fall within either the

Lefkowitz or Journigan exceptions. Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel with respect to

the plea are permitted under the Tollett rule. See Tollett, 411 U.S. at 267 (citing McMann, 397

Case 2:08-cv-00411-FCD-CMK Document 5 Filed 02/29/08 Page 2 of 3
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

3

U.S. at 771). In this case, none of petitioner’s claims relate to the validity of his guilty plea or

fall within either of the permitted exceptions to the Tollett rule. 

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that petitioner’s petition

for a writ of habeas corpus be summarily dismissed. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 20 days

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's

Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive

the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: February 29, 2008

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:08-cv-00411-FCD-CMK Document 5 Filed 02/29/08 Page 3 of 3