Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-01465/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-01465-1/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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

NOT FOR CITATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ABELARDO VELA, JR.,

Petitioner, No. C 05-1465 PJH

ORDER RE:

SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING

v.

MIKE KNOWLES, Warden,

Respondent.

_______________________________/

On April 11, 2005, petitioner Abelardo Vela, Jr. (“Vela”), currently in the custody of Mule

Creek State Prison in California, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254 with this court. Vela claims that he was deprived of the effective assistance of

counsel when his counsel failed to raise an allegedly meritorious motion to suppress evidence

based upon two illegal searches. 

A successful claim of ineffective assistance of counsel has two components. See

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 686 (1984). First, a defendant must show that

counsel’s performance was deficient. Id. at 687. Second, having established deficient

performance, a defendant must show that counsel’s errors were serious enough to deprive the

defendant of a fair, reliable trial. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687-88. 

In determining whether Vela’s counsel’s decision was reasonable, this court is

instructed to examine the strength of Vela’s motion to suppress. See Tollett v. Henderson,

Case 4:05-cv-01465-PJH Document 10 Filed 10/24/05 Page 1 of 3
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

411 U.S. 258, 267 (1973) (in the habeas context, claims of constitutional violations that

occurred prior to the entry of a guilty plea “are not themselves independent grounds for federal

collateral relief,” but “may play a part in evaluating the advice rendered by counsel”). Although

the merits of the motion clearly are relevant to the question of deficient performance, most

courts examining such claims analyze the strength of the underlying motion under the prejudice

prong of Strickland. See Wilson v. Henry, 185 F.3d 986, 990 (9th Cir. 1999). 

This case was fully briefed on July 26, 2005. The court has reviewed the parties’

papers and the transcripts of the evidentiary hearing held by the state superior court in

conjunction with Vela’s state habeas petition. In evaluating the strength of a motion to

suppress, this court must consider the standards governing the search of a parolee pursuant

to the Fourth Amendment. The standards, as set forth by the Ninth Circuit, differ from those

set forth by the California Supreme Court. See Moreno v. Baca, 400 F.3d 1152, 1163 (9th

Cir. 2005) (search of parolee requires reasonable suspicion of criminal wrongdoing); People

v. Reyes, 19 Cal.4th 743 (Cal. 1998) (reasonable suspicion not constitutionally required to

search parolee).

Since this case was briefed, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in

Samson v. California, 2005 WL 916785 (Sept. 27, 2005), to resolve whether the Fourth

Amendment requires reasonable suspicion in conducting a warrantless search of a parolee

subject to a parole search condition. 

Accordingly, the court orders the parties to submit supplemental briefs addressing the

following:

(1) the effect that the grant of certiorari in Samson v. California has on the instant

case;

(2) whether this court should stay the instant proceedings pending the Supreme

Court’s decision on the issue.

The parties shall file and serve supplemental briefs addressing the above two issues

no later than fourteen days from the date of this court’s order.

Case 4:05-cv-01465-PJH Document 10 Filed 10/24/05 Page 2 of 3
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

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 24, 2005

_____________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:05-cv-01465-PJH Document 10 Filed 10/24/05 Page 3 of 3