Alexeev v. Beccera
- William Alsup
- 3:19-cv-05150
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Alexeev v. Becerra, Judge Alsup ordered a response to Victor Alexeev’s federal challenge to his state conviction based on alleged ineffective plea advice.
Victor Alexeev and Xavier Becerra, including the respondent’s attorney, the Attorney General of California.
What happened
Victor Alexeev, representing himself, filed a federal petition challenging his 2013 Alameda County conviction after state courts denied his earlier petitions. He alleged that his trial lawyer failed to investigate possible defenses before advising him to plead no contest.
The court found this claim sufficient to require a response, but did not decide whether Alexeev is entitled to relief. The court ordered Xavier Becerra to answer or file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds within 63 days.
Judge William Alsup issued an order requiring the response and setting deadlines for any reply by Alexeev. The case therefore remained pending rather than being granted or denied on the merits.
The detailed version
- Alexeev v. Beccera · No. 3:19-cv-05150
- William Alsup
- Nov. 13, 2019
Background
Victor Alexeev filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, the federal procedure for challenging a state-court conviction. The opinion states that he appeared to be on parole or probation and that he paid the filing fee. He represented himself.
Alexeev was convicted in Alameda County Superior Court in 2013 after entering a plea of no contest. He did not file a direct appeal. He later challenged the conviction in habeas petitions filed in the superior court and the California Supreme Court, but both petitions were denied.
Claim and Court’s Analysis
Alexeev alleged that his trial lawyer gave ineffective advice about entering the no-contest plea because the lawyer had not investigated the legal or factual defenses available to him. The court found that, when read liberally, this claim warranted a response. The court did not decide whether the claim was ultimately valid or whether Alexeev should receive a new trial or other relief.
Order
The court ordered the clerk to send the petition and attachments to Xavier Becerra and the Attorney General of California. It ordered the respondent to file an answer within 63 days explaining why the petition should not be granted. Alternatively, the respondent could file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds within that period. If an answer were filed, Alexeev could respond within 28 days; the order also set deadlines for responses to any motion to dismiss.
This was an order requiring the respondent to respond, not a final ruling on the petition. Judge William Alsup also warned that failure to follow court orders or keep the court informed of an address change could result in dismissal for failure to prosecute.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.