Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02832/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02832-1/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PATRICK D. BURKE, 

Petitioner,

 v.

WARDEN D.K. SISTO, 

Respondent. ______________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

No. C 07-2832 MMC (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

On May 31, 2007, petitioner, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed the abovetitled petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On June 13, 2007,

the Court found petitioner had failed to state cognizable claims for habeas corpus relief;

specifically, he had not identified what federal law allegedly was violated, as is necessary to

provide respondent with adequate notice of the claims being asserted. See Hendricks v.

Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491-92 (9th Cir. 1990). The Court granted petitioner leave to amend

his claims to allege what federal law, if any, he is asserting was violated; the Court also

advised petitioner that any federal basis for such claims must have been exhausted by

petitioner’s having presented the claims to the California Supreme Court before raising them

in federal court. On July 11, 2007 petitioner filed an amended petition, which amended

petition the Court now reviews.

BACKGROUND

In 2003, in the Superior Court of Santa Clara County (“Superior Court”), petitioner

was convicted of vandalism and driving under the influence of alcohol. He was sentenced to

Case 3:07-cv-02832-MMC Document 6 Filed 05/19/08 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 1

Petitioner states he is only challenging his vandalism conviction herein.

2

a term of six years and four months in state prison. Petitioner challenged his vandalism

conviction1

 by habeas petitions filed in the Superior Court, the California Court of Appeal

and the California Supreme Court. All three habeas petitions were denied. 

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);

Rose v. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). A district court 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.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2243. 

B. Petitioner’s Claims

In the amended petition, petitioner alleges his rights under the Fifth, Sixth and

Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution were violated when: (1) his

attorney advised him to plead nolo contendere to the vandalism charge, which charge was not

supported by the evidence; (2) false information was used to charge the vandalism count as a

felony; and (3) he was given an illegal sentence as a result of the above- referenced

ineffective assistance of counsel and false information. In clarification of his claims,

petitioner has attached a copy of the state habeas petition he filed in the California Supreme

Court; in said petition, petitioner raised the following claim:

Trial attorney advised me to plea “nolo contendere” to the charge of vandalism

when the documents in the file clearly are “not” supportive of the charge in my

case, in violation of the 5th, 6th and 14th Amendment[s], U.S. Const.

(Amen. Pet. Attachment.) 

A defendant who pleads guilty cannot later raise in habeas corpus proceedings

independent claims relating to the deprivation of constitutional rights that occurred before the

Case 3:07-cv-02832-MMC Document 6 Filed 05/19/08 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

2

Under California law, a plea of nolo contendere in a felony case is equivalent to a

plea of guilty for all purposes. See Cal. Penal Code § 1016.

3

plea of guilty. See Haring v. Prosise, 462 U.S. 306, 319-20 (1983).2 After a guilty plea, the

only challenges remaining as a basis for federal habeas relief are the voluntary and intelligent

character of the plea and the nature of the advice of counsel to plead. Hill v. Lockhart, 474

U.S. 52, 56-57 (1985). Here, when the claims in the instant petition are liberally construed, it

appears petitioner is attempting to challenge his vandalism conviction and sentence based on:

(1) ineffective assistance of counsel, and (2) the prosecutor’s reliance on false information to

charge petitioner with a felony. Petitioner’s claim that the prosecutor relied on false

information to charge him with a felony must be dismissed because said claim relates to the

deprivation of constitutional rights that occurred before petitioner pled guilty. Liberally

construed, however, petitioner’s claim that he was provided ineffective assistance of counsel

is cognizable.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Court orders as follows:

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

amended petition (Docket No. 4), along with all attachments thereto, on respondent and

respondent’s counsel, the Attorney General for the State of California. The Clerk shall also

serve a copy of this order on petitioner. 

2. Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on petitioner, within ninety (90)

days of the date this order is filed, 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 granted based on petitioner’s cognizable claims. 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

Case 3:07-cv-02832-MMC Document 6 Filed 05/19/08 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

4

the Court and serving it on respondent’s counsel within thirty (30) days of the date the

answer is filed.

3. In lieu of an answer, respondent may file, within ninety (90) days of the date this

order is filed, a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds, 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 non-opposition within thirty (30) days of the date the motion is filed, and

respondent shall file with the Court and serve on petitioner a reply within fifteen (15) days of

the date any opposition is filed.

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. 

5. It is petitioner’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Petitioner must keep the

Court and respondent informed of any change of address and must comply with the Court’s

orders in a timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for

failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

6. Upon a showing of good cause, requests for a reasonable extension of time will be

granted as long as they are filed on or before the deadline they seek to extend.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 19, 2008 _________________________ MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-02832-MMC Document 6 Filed 05/19/08 Page 4 of 4