Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01049/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01049-4/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

STEVE ALLEN BUTLER,

Petitioner,

v.

DERRAL ADAMS, Warden,

Respondent.

_____________________________/

CIV. NO. S-04-1049 EJG/GGH P

ORDER

The court is in receipt of a letter from petitioner

addressed to the undersigned, dated February 5, 2008 and filed

February 12, 2008, requesting relief from the March 30, 2005

order denying his petition for habeas corpus. Specifically,

petitioner requests that the court clarify that he was convicted

in state court of a violation of California Penal Code § 288(a),

lewd contact with a minor, not California Penal Code § 288.5,

continual sexual abuse of a child. The reason for the request is

that the former offense has a substantially lesser maximum

sentence, three years, than the latter, sixteen years. 

In support of his request, petitioner points to the Findings

and Recommendations issued by the Magistrate Judge and filed

November 29, 2004, which, in reciting the history of the

underlying case, state that petitioner was convicted of a

Case 2:04-cv-01049-EJG-GGH Document 56 Filed 03/12/08 Page 1 of 5
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

violation of Penal Code § 288(a), lewd conduct with a minor. 

The request is denied for two reasons. First, petitioner is

time-barred from obtaining the relief he seeks. His petition for

habeas corpus was denied by the Magistrate Judge; his objections

to that finding were considered and rejected by this court; and

his appeal of this court’s order denying relief was affirmed by

the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in an unpublished memorandum. 

Butler v. Adams, No. 05-15794 (9 Cir., filed June 19, 2006). th

Any requests for reconsideration of the court’s order, including

a request for sentence clarification coming more than 18 months

after judgment has been entered, are simply too late. 

Second, petitioner is simply mistaken. The record is laden

with documents confirming that the crime with which he was

charged and to which he pled no contest was, in fact, a violation

of California Penal Code § 288.5. For example, Exhibit B to the

§ 2254 petition is a partial copy of an Information charging

petitioner in Count 1 with Oral Copulation of a Person under 18,

in violation of Penal Code § 288a(b)(1), and in Count 2 with

Continual Sexual Abuse of a Child, in violation of Penal Code §

288.5. Next, at one of two Marsden hearings held in the

underlying case petitioner responds to an inquiry by the judge by

saying: “I know I’m being charged with continuing abuse of a

child, but specific allegations have never been explained to me

and I’ve asked for that.” Exhibit F to § 2254 Petition, 7:27 -

8:1 (emphasis added). 

Case 2:04-cv-01049-EJG-GGH Document 56 Filed 03/12/08 Page 2 of 5
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

The transcript of the change of plea hearing is even more

telling, as illustrated in the following colloquy:

THE COURT: All right. And the D.A. was willing to take

a plea to Count 2 and dismiss the first Count with a Harvey

waiver, is that correct?

MS. PERKINS [Assistant District Attorney]: Yes.

MR. BOWERS [Defense Counsel]: That’s correct.

. . . . 

MR. BOWERS: Your Honor, I just added the dismissal of

Count 1 with the Harvey waiver. I would just like to

explain it to Mr. Butler briefly.

. . . .

THE COURT: Yes. All right. Mr. Butler, have you read

all the rights contained here in the form?

THE DEFENDANT [Petitioner Butler]: Yes, your honor.

THE COURT: Have you read all the penalties contained in

the form?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: Do you understand the maximum possible

penalty could be 16 years in the Department of

Corrections?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honor.

. . . .

THE COURT: Do you also understand a Harvey waiver, that

although Count 1 is going to be dismissed, the Court

Case 2:04-cv-01049-EJG-GGH Document 56 Filed 03/12/08 Page 3 of 5
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

can consider the facts behind that to determine what

the appropriate sentence will be? 

THE DEFENDANT: Yes.

THE COURT: With the rights and penalties in mind, is it

your desire to give the rights up and enter this plea

to Count 2, continual sexual abuse of a child?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, your honor.

. . . .

THE COURT: Okay. And do you admit that on and between

June 1 of 1990 and March 3 of 1995 here in Solano st rd

County you unlawfully engaged in three or more of acts

of substantial sexual contact as defined by Penal Code

Section 1203.66 and three or more acts of lewd and

lascivious conduct in violation of Penal Code section

288 with a minor whose initials were A.L., who is under

the age of 14 while you resided with and had recurring

access to a minor child? Is that the case?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, your honor.

THE COURT: How do you plead to the charge?

THE DEFENDANT: No contest, your Honor.

THE COURT: I’m going to accept the plea, find it is

freely given with full knowledge of all rights waived,

find a factual basis for the plea, incorporate the

waiver form by reference into the docket. Count 1 is

hereby dismissed with the Harvey waiver.

Case 2:04-cv-01049-EJG-GGH Document 56 Filed 03/12/08 Page 4 of 5
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 5

Exhibit G attached to § 2254 Petition (Transcript of Change of

Plea, April 23, 1998, 4:1 -6:13) (emphasis added).

Finally, the 1 District Court of Appeals, in a written st

order affirming petitioner’s conviction, confirms that the plea

was to one count of continuous sexual abuse of a child. 

“Appellant pleaded nolo contendere to continuous sexual abuse of

a child under the age of 14 (§ 288.5) with the understanding that

the remaining count (§ 288a,subd.(b)(1)) would be dismissed. The

court sentenced appellant to the aggravated term of 16 years in

state prison for continuous sexual abuse of a child under the age

of 14 (§ 288.5).” Exhibit E to Opposition to Respondent’s Motion

to Dismiss Habeas Corpus as Untimely.

From all of these documents it is evident that defendant’s

plea was in fact to Penal Code § 288.5. The citation to § 288(a)

in the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations was but a

reference to petitioner’s § 2254 petition. Any attempt to

construe that statement as an actual finding of petitioner’s

underlying conviction is misplaced.

For the reasons stated above, petitioner’s request for

clarification is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 10, 2008

/s/ Edward J. Garcia 

EDWARD J. GARCIA, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 2:04-cv-01049-EJG-GGH Document 56 Filed 03/12/08 Page 5 of 5