Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-04743/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-04743-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Suzanne M. Peery
Respondent
Daniel Hector Viera
Petitioner

Document Text:

ORDER – No. 19-cv-04743-LB

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

San Francisco Division

DANIEL HECTOR VIERA,

Petitioner,

v.

SUZANNE M. PEERY,

Respondent.

Case No. 19-cv-04743-LB

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Re: ECF No. 1

INTRODUCTION

Petitioner Daniel Hector Viera is currently in the custody of respondent Suzanne M. Peery, 

Warden, at the California Correctional Facility in Susanville, California. Mr. Viera filed this 

action seeking a writ of habeas corpus. Mr. Viera’s petition is now before the court pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2254 and Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 and 2255 Cases in the United 

States District Courts. This order requires the respondent to respond to the petition.

STATEMENT

On October 29, 2010, in Solano County case number FCR276370, Mr. Viera entered a plea of 

no contest to a violation of California Penal Code § 273.5(a) (willful infliction of corporal injury

to spouse/cohabitant/child’s parent) with an enhancement under California Penal Code 

Case 3:19-cv-04743-LB Document 3 Filed 08/15/19 Page 1 of 4
ORDER – No. 19-cv-04743-LB 2

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

Northern District of California

§ 12022.7(a) (inflicting great bodily injury while committing or attempting felony).1 Mr. Viera 

was sentenced to serve 210 days in county jail and a term of three years’ probation.2 Mr. Viera 

received half-time (or two-for-one) credits during his incarceration pursuant to California Penal 

Code § 4019.3

On April 18, 2013, in Solano County case number VCR217660 Mr. Viera was charged with a 

violation of California Vehicle Code § 2800.2 (driving in willful or wanton disregard for safety of 

persons or property while fleeing from pursuing police officer) and California Vehicle Code 

§ 20002 (duty to stop where property is damaged).4 On September 19, 2013, in case number 

FCR276370, Mr. Viera admitted the violation and was sentenced five years’ probation with a 

seven-year suspended sentence and was committed to the Delancey Street program for two years.

5

Mr. Viera also waived all custody credits, “past, present and future,” but the terms of those credits 

allegedly were not discussed.

6

In case number VCR217660, Mr. Viera was sentenced to three 

years’ probation with an eight-month suspended sentence, to be served consecutively to the sevenyear sentence in case number FCR276370.7

On February 14, 2017, the Solano County court found that Mr. Viera was in violation of his 

probation and formally revoked his probation.8 On March 17, 2017, the court sentenced Mr. Viera 

to a seven-year-and-eight-month prison term.9 Mr. Viera was not awarded any credits.10

 

1 Habeas Pet. – ECF No. 1 at 5 (¶ 1). Citations refer to material in the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); 

pinpoint citations are to the ECF-generated page numbers at the top of documents.

2

Id.

3

Id.

4

Id. (¶ 2).

5

Id.

6

Id. at 1 (¶ 2), 7 (¶¶ 11–12).

7

Id. at 1 (¶ 2).

8

Id. at 6 (¶ 3).

9

Id.

10 Id.

Case 3:19-cv-04743-LB Document 3 Filed 08/15/19 Page 2 of 4
ORDER – No. 19-cv-04743-LB 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

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Mr. Viera did not pursue a direct appeal of his conviction.11 On October 25, 2018, he filed a 

petition for writ of habeas corpus in Solano County Superior Court, arguing that he was denied his 

Sixth Amendment right to counsel because his counsel allegedly had not properly advised him of 

the conduct credits that were available to him.12 On December 17, 2018, the Solano County 

Superior Court denied Mr. Viera’s petition.13

On February 13, 2019, Mr. Viera filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the California 

Court of Appeal, First Appellate District.14 On April 4, 2019, the California Court of Appeal 

denied Mr. Viera’s petition.15 On April 11, 2019, Mr. Viera filed a petition for review in the 

California Supreme Court.16 On May 15, 2019, the California Supreme Court denied Mr. Viera’s 

petition.17

Mr. Viera now brings this federal petition for writ of habeas corpus, arguing that he “was 

denied his Sixth Amendment right to counsel at a critical stage of the criminal proceedings when 

trial counsel failed to advise him that he was not eligible for half-time credits for his 7-year prison 

commitment.”18

ANALYSIS

This court may entertain a petition for 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). Mr. Viera alleges 

that he is in custody in violation of the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

 

11 Id. (¶ 4).

12 Id.

13 Id. (¶ 5).

14 Id. (¶ 6).

15 Id.

16 Id.

17 Id.

18 Id. at 7 (¶ 15).

Case 3:19-cv-04743-LB Document 3 Filed 08/15/19 Page 3 of 4
ORDER – No. 19-cv-04743-LB 4

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

Northern District of California

Courts “shall forthwith award the grant 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. “Summary dismissal is appropriate 

only when the allegations in the petition are vague or conclusory or palpably incredible, or 

patently frivolous or false.” Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990) (internal 

citations, quotation marks, and brackets omitted). The court cannot say that Mr. Viera’s 

allegations are vague, conclusory, palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false. The 

respondent must respond to Mr. Viera’s petition.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons,

1. Mr. Viera’s petition warrants a response.

2. The clerk must serve by mail a copy of this order and the petition and all attachments 

thereto upon the respondent.

3. The clerk also must serve a copy of the “consent or declination to magistrate judge 

jurisdiction” form upon the respondent.

4. By September 5, 2019, the respondent must file and serve upon Mr. Viera 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.

5. If Mr. Viera wishes to respond to the answer, he must do so by filing a traverse with 

the court and serving it on the respondent by September 26, 2019.

The matter will be taken under submission, or set for hearing, in the court’s discretion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 15, 2019

______________________________________

LAUREL BEELER

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:19-cv-04743-LB Document 3 Filed 08/15/19 Page 4 of 4