Clark v. Lewis
| Decision Date | 23 April 2014 |
| Docket Number | No. 2:12-cv-2687 TLN GGH (HC),2:12-cv-2687 TLN GGH (HC) |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California |
| Parties | LOUREECE CLARK, Petitioner, v. GREG LEWIS, Warden, Respondent. |
Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner challenges a judgment entered against him on July 15, 2011, following a no contest plea in the Sacramento County Superior Court on two counts of second degree robbery and one count of evading a police officer. He seeks federal habeas relief ostensibly on the following grounds: (1) his motion to withdraw his plea was improperly denied; (2) the prosecution failed to disclose evidence favorable to petitioner at his trial; and, (3) he was denied effective assistance of counsel. ECF No. 1, 3-4. Upon careful consideration of the record and the applicable law, the undersigned will recommend that petitioner's application for habeas corpus relief be denied.
This action comes before the Court with an irregular procedural background due to numerous state court proceedings, appeal filings, petitions for review, and petitions for habeascorpus.
The following factual summary is quoted from the opinion of the California Court of Appeal, Third District, in petitioner's second appeal:
On October 7, 2010, Petitioner was charged in the Sacramento County Superior Court with the following: second degree robbery of Wells Fargo Bank while armed with a firearm; second degree robbery of bank teller Anne Beaumont while armed with a firearm; second degree robbery of bank teller Ioana Crivineanu while armed with a firearm; evading a police officer; assault with a firearm upon bank employee Ali Khosroshahi; attempted second degree robbery of bank teller Brenda Galindo; misdemeanor resisting arrest; and, attempted murder of Sacramento Sheriff's Deputy Duke Lewis. Lod. Doc. 22, Clerk's Transcript on Appeal (C068785) ("CT"), 207-216. On December 9, 2010, a jury found petitioner guilty of only one charge, misdemeanor resisting arrest, but was deadlocked on the remaining charges. Id. at 13, 334-335; Lod. Doc. 23, Reporter's Transcript on Appeal (C068785) ("RT"), 1212-1215. The trial court declared a mistrial on the unresolved counts, which the prosecution elected to retry. Lod. Doc. 22, CT, 13; Lod. Doc. 23, RT, 1214-1218.
On May 2, 2011, during pretrial proceedings for his second trial, petitioner moved to represent himself.1 Lod. Doc. 22, CT, 16. However, at the next hearing held on May 6, 2011, petitioner withdrew the motion. Lod. Doc. 22, CT, 16; Lod. Doc. 23, Supplemental Reporter's Transcript on Appeal ("SRT") (C068785), 246-247.
On June 14, 2011, petitioner pled no contest to three counts—second degree robbery of bank teller Anne Beaumont with the armed allegation of the charge stricken, second degree robbery of bank teller Ioana Crivineanu with the armed allegation of the charge stricken, and evading a police officer—in exchange for a stipulated term of 6 years imprisonment. Doc. 22, CT, 18; Lod. Doc. 23, RT, 1222-1234. Upon entering the plea, Judge Trena Burger-Plavan stated that petitioner could receive 13 years and 4 months if he went to trial and was convicted of all counts. Id. at 1226. Petitioner's counsel stated that he explained that potential consequence of going to trial with petitioner. Id. The judge then asked petitioner numerous questions considering whether he was prepared to enter the plea, understood the consequences of entering the plea, and had sufficient time to discuss the plea and its consequences with his attorney. Lod. Doc. 23, RT, 1224-1227. Petitioner responded to each question in various forms of the affirmative. Id. The judge also advised petitioner "that because of the offenses to which [he pled] are considered to be serious felonies, or what is referred to in California as strikes, those can be used to enhance [his] sentence for any future felony convictions that [he may] receive." Id. at 1227. Again, petitioner answered in the affirmative. Judge Burger-Plavan also advised petitioner that he must give up certain constitutional rights before she could accept his plea, which the petitioner stated he understood. Petitioner, joined by his attorney and the prosecution, then gave up those rights. Id. at 1227-1228. Finally, petitioner stated that no other promises were made causing him to enter the plea, that he was not threatened or pressured in any way to enter the plea, and that he was not under the influence of alcohol, drugs or medication causing him difficulty inunderstanding the proceedings. Id. at 1228. After formally pleading "no contest" to the agreed upon charges, Judge Burger-Plavan asked petitioner whether he was "entering each of [the] pleas freely and voluntarily," to which petitioner responded in the affirmative. Id. at 1232.
Subsequently, on June 24, 2011, petitioner filed a pro se motion to withdraw his plea. Lod. Doc. 22, CT, 422-428. First, petitioner argued that his counsel misadvised him of the direct consequences of the plea. Id. at 424. Petitioner alleged that his attorney "assured [him] that although the two robbery convictions deem two strikes under California law but in reality, it was only one strike . . . [and that] the two robbery counts amounted to only one robbery because they alleged to be occurred simultaneously as part of the robbery . . . for purposes of sentencing under the three strikes law." Id. at 424. Petitioner stated that he found this to be untrue after conducting his own legal research. Id. Petitioner then argued that his plea should be withdrawn because it was not supported by a factual basis. Id. at 425. He asserted that even though he arguably "had the intent to commit robbery against the Wells Fargo bank, [he] may not have the same intent to commit robberies against individualized (sic) victims presented (sic) at the bank." Id.
On July 15, 2011, at petitioner's sentencing proceedings, Judge Burger-Plavan stated that petitioner did "not have standing to be filing things on his own behalf" since he was represented by an attorney. Lod. Doc. 23, RT, 1236. She then stated that she "advised [petitioner] specifically that two of the offenses to which [he was] pleading were considered to be serious felonies and strikes under California law and that they could be used to enhance [his] sentence for any future felony convictions." Id. at 1237. The Judge then denied the motion to withdraw the plea of no contest and sentenced plaintiff to an aggregate term of 6 years imprisonment. Id. at 1237-1251. Petitioner's counsel did not assert any argument for or make any statements regarding petitioner's motion. Id.
Petitioner filed numerous appeals in the Sacramento Superior Court, the California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, and the California Supreme Court. See Lod. Docs. 1-21. In the interest of judicial economy, only the relevant appeals and petitions are discussed below. In the interest of clarity, each matter is discussed in order of occurrence and includes case numbersfor reference.
On July 22, 2011, petitioner filed a notice of appeal in the California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District.2 This action was assigned case number C068785. See Lod. Docs. 1-4.
On January 3, 2012, petitioner, on his own behalf, filed his first habeas petition3 in the Sacramento County Superior Court. Lod. Doc. 12. This action was assigned case number 12F00264. Id. His petition alleged that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and that he was denied the right to a jury trial, both of which derived from the denial of his motion to withdraw his plea. Id. Petitioner attached his trial court motion to withdraw his plea to his petition. Id. Petitioner indicated in his petition that he filed an appeal on this matter, case number C068785 with the California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, and that it was pending review. Id. Petitioner noted that the issues raised in his appeal were (1) due process of law violations, (2) ineffective assistance of counsel, and (3) the right to a trial by jury. Id. On March 1, 2012, the court dismissed his petition for lack of jurisdiction of both claims because they were raised in a pending appeal. Id.
On April 30, 2012, petitioner, on his own behalf, filed a petition for writ of mandate, with the California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District. Lod. Doc. 17. Petitioner attached both the habeas petition he filed in the Sacramento County Superior Court, case number 12F00264, and his trial court motion to withdraw his plea. Id. In his petition, petitioner asserted that his no-contest plea "barred double punishment" and that a reversal of his conviction is warranted because there was a miscarriage of justice based on ineffective assistance of counsel. Id. He also...
To continue reading
Request your trial