Collier v. Hill

Background

Joe Robert Collier, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his 2013 sentence for first-degree burglary imposed by the Santa Clara County Superior Court. The sentence included 25 years to life for the burglary conviction and a 15-year determinate term based on three prior serious-felony convictions. Collier sought to proceed without paying filing fees, and the court granted that request.

Collier argued that two prior first-degree burglary convictions from 1991 and 1997 resulted from plea bargains. He contended that California Penal Code § 1016.8, which took effect on January 1, 2020, applied retroactively to those convictions and made them invalid because the plea bargains allegedly waived future benefits of changes in the law. He argued that the prior convictions therefore could not be used to increase his current sentence.

Court’s analysis

The court held that the petition failed to state a claim for federal habeas relief. Under the rule discussed in the opinion, a person generally may not use a federal challenge to a later sentence to attack an older conviction that was already final and was used to enhance that sentence. The opinion identifies a limited exception when the person was not represented by counsel in the earlier case. Collier did not allege that he lacked counsel in the cases leading to his 1991 and 1997 convictions, so the court held that the rule barred his challenge.

The court also explained in a footnote that Collier’s arguments failed on the merits. It stated that § 1016.8 applies retroactively only to cases that were not final on appeal as of January 1, 2020, while Collier’s 1991 and 1997 convictions were final before that date. The court further stated that § 1016.8 does not invalidate every conviction or sentence resulting from a plea bargain; it applies only to convictions resulting from guilty pleas that required a waiver of future benefits from retroactive changes in the law. The court said Collier had not alleged that his plea agreements contained such waivers.

Ruling

Judge Jon S. Tigar denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The court also denied a certificate of appealability because Collier had not shown that reasonable judges could debate whether the court’s assessment of his constitutional claims was wrong. The court granted Collier’s requests to proceed without paying filing fees, entered judgment for Respondent James Hill, and directed the Clerk to close the case.