Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-01877/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-01877-1/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)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Order to Show Cause; Denying Evid Hearing and Appt of Counsel

N:\Pro - Se\8.20.2007\04-1877 Lopez1877_osc.wpd

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TONY J. LOPEZ,

Petitioner,

 vs.

A. A. LAMARQUE, Warden,

Respondent.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 04-01877 JW (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE;

DENYING MOTIONS FOR

EVIDENTIARY HEARING AND

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(Docket No. 19 & 21)

Petitioner, a prisoner at the California State Prison in Corcoran, California,

filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254,

challenging his state conviction. Petitioner has filed a motion for an evidentiary

hearing (Docket No. 19) and a motion for appointment of counsel ( Docket No. 21). 

BACKGROUND

According to the petition, petitioner plead guilty in Superior Court for the

State of California in and for the County of Santa Clara to four counts of lewd or

lascivious acts. Petitioner was sentenced to thirty-two years in state prison. 

Case 5:04-cv-01877-JW Document 23 Filed 08/20/07 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Order to Show Cause; Denying Evid Hearing and Appt of Counsel

N:\Pro - Se\8.20.2007\04-1877 Lopez1877_osc.wpd 2

Petitioner alleges that he appealed his conviction in state court. The

California Court of Appeal affirmed his conviction on or about October 7, 2003. 

The Supreme Court of California denied review on or about December 23, 2003.

Petitioner filed a federal habeas petition on May 12, 2004, which was dismissed with

leave to amend. On May 3, 2005, petitioner filed an amended petition. The Court

dismissed all claims therein except for the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel,

which petitioner was given leave to amend. On July 25, 2007, petitioner filed the

instant second amended petition which is now before the Court for initial review. 

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

This court may entertain a petition for a writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a

person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that

he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United

States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). 

It shall “award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show

cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that

the applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto.” Id. § 2243. 

B. Legal Claims

Petitioner alleges that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance in wrongly

advising him to accept the plea agreement in order to avoid a life sentence if they

went to trial. Petitioner claims that there was no risk of a life sentence because he

was factually innocent of the additional charges which counsel advised could be

brought against him if they rejected the plea. Petitioner claims that counsel coerced

him into pleading guilty on all counts without negotiating for a lower sentence.

Liberally construed, petitioner’s claim appears cognizable under § 2254, and merits

Case 5:04-cv-01877-JW Document 23 Filed 08/20/07 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Order to Show Cause; Denying Evid Hearing and Appt of Counsel

N:\Pro - Se\8.20.2007\04-1877 Lopez1877_osc.wpd 3

an answer from respondent. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687

(1984); see Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 56-57 (1985).

C. Evidentiary Hearing

 Petitioner’s motion for an evidentiary hearing (Docket No. 19) is DENIED. 

The Court will order an evidentiary hearing sua sponte if it later determines that a

hearing is necessary to aide in the resolution of this matter. 

D. Appointment of Counsel

Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel (Docket No. 21) is DENIED

without prejudice. See Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728 (9th Cir. 1986)

(unless an evidentiary hearing is required, the decision to appoint counsel in habeas

corpus proceedings is within the discretion of the district court). Petitioner clearly

presented his claims for relief in the petition and an order to show cause is issuing. 

Accord Bashor v. Risley, 730 F.2d 1228, 1234 (9th Cir. 1984) (although petitioner

had no background in law, denial of appointment of counsel within discretion of

district court where petitioner clearly presented issues in petition and accompanying

memorandum). The Court will appoint counsel on its own motion if it determines

an evidentiary hearing is required. See Knaubert, 791 F.2d at 728 (appointment of

counsel mandatory if evidentiary hearing is required).

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown,

1. The clerk shall serve by certified mail a copy of this order and the 

petition and all attachments thereto on respondent and respondent’s attorney, the

Attorney General of the State of California. The clerk also shall serve a copy of this

order on petitioner. 

2. Respondent shall file with the court and serve on petitioner, within

Case 5:04-cv-01877-JW Document 23 Filed 08/20/07 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Order to Show Cause; Denying Evid Hearing and Appt of Counsel

N:\Pro - Se\8.20.2007\04-1877 Lopez1877_osc.wpd 4

ninety (90) days of the issuance of this order, an answer conforming in all respects

to Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, showing cause why a writ of

habeas corpus should not be issued. Respondent shall file with the answer and serve

on petitioner a copy of all portions of the state trial record that have been transcribed

previously and that are relevant to a determination of the issues presented by the

petition.

If petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he shall do so by filing a

traverse with the court and serving it on respondent within forty-five (45) days of

his receipt of the answer. 

3. Respondent may file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds in lieu

of an answer, as set forth in the Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 4 of the Rules

Governing Section 2254 Cases. If respondent files such a motion, petitioner shall

file with the court and serve on respondent an opposition or statement of nonopposition within thirty (30) days of receipt of the motion, and respondent shall file

with the court and serve on petitioner a reply within fifteen (15) days of receipt of

any opposition.

4. Petitioner is reminded that all communications with the court must be

served on respondent by mailing a true copy of the document to respondent’s

counsel. Petitioner must also keep the court and all parties informed of any change 

of address. 

This order terminates Docket Nos. 19 and 21. 

DATED: August 12, 2007 JAMES WARE

United States District Judge 

Case 5:04-cv-01877-JW Document 23 Filed 08/20/07 Page 4 of 4