Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-00597/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-00597-2/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

The matter was transferred to this court from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, 1

where the case was docketed as an original habeas petition. 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BASILIO RAIMUNDO MITCHELL, No. CIV S-10-597-CMK-P

Petitioner, 

vs. ORDER

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent.

 /

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

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

1

amended petition (Doc. 6). 

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 on several of his

claims. According to petitioner, he is challenging a February 2005 conviction entered in the

Case 2:10-cv-00597-WBS-CMK Document 16 Filed 06/01/10 Page 1 of 4
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

Sacramento County Superior Court. Petitioner states in the amended petition that he was

convicted following his plea of no contest. In the instant federal habeas action, petitioner argues:

(1) “I did not kill whom the D.A. swears I killed”; (2) “I was given an added 4 years gun

enhancement”; (3) “I was made to agree to deal of subtraction of pre-sentence credit of 3 years 9

months 7 days”; and (4) “The appeal was a failure.” 

A guilty plea, or plea of no contest, which is knowingly, intelligently, and

voluntarily made, bars any right to later assert claims based on constitutional deprivations

allegedly occurring prior to the 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 or no contest, he may only challenge whether the 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 plea 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

Case 2:10-cv-00597-WBS-CMK Document 16 Filed 06/01/10 Page 2 of 4
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

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 or no contest 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 U.S. at 771). In this case, only one claim (at Ground Three) implicates the validity of

petitioner’s no contest plea. Specifically, petitioner claims that his trial counsel was ineffective

for misadvising him with respect to agreeing to “subtraction of pre-sentence credit.” Construed

liberally, this claim implicates the validity of the no contest plea. None of petitioner’s other

claims, however, do so and are thus non-cognizable. 

Another defect persists in petitioner’s amended petition. “A petitioner for habeas

corpus relief must name the state officer having custody of him or her as the respondent to the

petition.” Stanley v. California Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994); see also Rule

2(a), Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. In this case, petitioner names “United States

of America” as the respondent even though he also states that he is in state custody at the

California Men’s Colony. Because petitioner has not named the appropriate state officer, the

petition must be dismissed with leave to amend to name the correct respondent. See Stanley, 21

F.3d at 360. 

Petitioner will be provided an opportunity to file an amended petition which

names the correct respondent and omits non-cognizable claims. 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:10-cv-00597-WBS-CMK Document 16 Filed 06/01/10 Page 3 of 4
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

4

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s amended petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 6) is

dismissed with leave to amend; 

2. Petitioner shall file an amended petition on the form employed by this

court, and which names the proper respondent and states all claims and requests for relief, within

30 days of the date of this order; and 

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send petitioner the court’s form

habeas corpus application.

DATED: May 28, 2010

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:10-cv-00597-WBS-CMK Document 16 Filed 06/01/10 Page 4 of 4