Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-02043/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-02043-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

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

United States District Court

Eastern District of California

CHAN SAETEURN,

Petitioner,

v.

WARDEN DERAL G. ADAMS,

Respondent.

 08-CV-2043 TJH

Order

JS-6

In 2002, police found a young man lying dead in a front yard. Witnesses said

someone in a black Acura shot the man. Later, a passenger in that Acura claimed that

the car’s driver, Chan Saeteurn (“Petitioner”), shot the victim. Petitioner was

eventually arrested at his brother’s home. 

Petitioner pled not guilty to premeditated murder and several enhancements. 

Later, Petitioner pled no contest to second degree murder and a single enhancement. 

In exchange, the prosecution stipulated to a prison sentence of twenty-five years to

life – Petitioner had faced a possible prison sentence of fifty-years to life. At the

change of plea hearing, the trial court advised Petitioner that he would be subject to

up to five years of parole upon release from prison.

Order – Page 1 of 3

Case 2:08-cv-02043-TJH Document 25 Filed 09/06/12 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

Subsequently, Petitioner moved to withdraw his no contest plea, and reinstate

his not guilty plea. Petitioner claimed his no contest plea was an emotional response

to his father’s warning that pleading not guilty would place their family in danger,

which Petitioner understood to mean that his brother would be prosecuted for

harboring a felon. At the hearing on the motion to withdraw the plea, the prosecutor

declared that he never intended to prosecute Petitioner’s brother, and Petitioner’s

father explained that he had fabricated the claim that pleading not guilty would

endanger their family. The trial court denied Petitioner’s plea withdrawal motion. 

At the sentencing hearing, before the imposition of the sentence, the trial court

advised Petitioner that he would be subject to lifetime parole. As there was no

objection, the trial court proceeded to sentence Petitioner to twenty-five years to life

in prison and lifetime parole. 

Petitioner, now, seeks a writ of habeas corpus, claiming that his no contest plea

was entered involuntarily and unknowingly because the plea was entered out of fear

for his brother, and his plea was based upon the belief that Petitioner’s parole

supervision would last only a few years. As California courts have already denied

Petitioner’s claims on their merits, this Court cannot grant Petitioner relief unless

prior state court adjudication resulted in a decision which was incorrect in light of

federal law clearly established by the Supreme Court. Harrington v. Richter, __ U.S.

__, 131 S. Ct. 770, 786, 178 L. Ed. 2d 624, 640 (2011).

Pleas entered involuntarily or unknowingly are constitutionally void. Brady

v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 747, 90 S. Ct. 1463, 1468, 25 L. Ed. 2d 747, 756

(1970). However, “the desire to help a friend or loved one, and the accompanying

psychological and emotional pressure, does not render a guilty plea involuntary.” 

Zaragoza v. Stainer, 77 F.3d 491 (9th Cir. 1996). Further, the evidence is clear that

the prosecutor never threatened to prosecute Petitioner’s brother. Thus, Petitioner’s

Order – Page 2 of 3

Case 2:08-cv-02043-TJH Document 25 Filed 09/06/12 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

first claim must fail.

As for Petitioner’s second claim, the Supreme Court has held that a defendant

must know the direct consequences of his plea. Brady, 397 U.S. at 755. In Carter

v. McCarthy, 806 F.2d 1373, 1376 (9th Cir. 1986), the Ninth Circuit held that parole

length is a direct consequence of pleas in certain cases. However, there is no clearly

established SupremeCourt precedent confirming the holding inCarter. See Egwuatu

v. Madding, 168 F.3d 498 (9th Cir. 1999). Therefore, even assuming that Petitioner

was unaware of his parole length until after the imposition of his sentence, his no

contest plea would not have been legally invalid under existing Supreme Court

precedent. Moreover, the record is clear that Petitioner was advised by the trial court

before the imposition of the sentence that Petitioner faced lifetime parole. 

It is Ordered that the petition be, and hereby is, Denied.

Date: September 4, 2012

____________________________________

Terry J. Hatter, Jr.

Senior United States District Judge

Order – Page 3 of 3

Case 2:08-cv-02043-TJH Document 25 Filed 09/06/12 Page 3 of 3