Sands v. Diaz

Background

Philip Leo Sands, a California prisoner representing himself, filed a federal petition challenging his state-court conviction from San Francisco County Superior Court. His state petition had claimed that trial counsel gave ineffective advice about whether to accept the prosecution’s plea offer. The state superior court rejected that claim on the merits and denied Sands’s request for an evidentiary hearing; higher state courts summarily denied his later petitions.

In the federal case, Sands asserted that the state court violated due process by failing to hold an evidentiary hearing before rejecting his ineffective-assistance claim. He relied on Townsend v. Sain, which sets standards for a federal court’s consideration of a request to receive evidence that was not presented to the state courts. The court explained that this authority does not establish a due-process right to an evidentiary hearing in state court. It also explained that federal review of a claim decided on the merits generally asks whether the state court’s decision was contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, or was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts.

Motion for Appointment of Counsel

Sands asked the court to appoint counsel based on his imprisonment, indigency, and lack of legal training. The court stated that there is no automatic right to counsel in a federal habeas case. Unless an evidentiary hearing is required, appointing counsel is within the district court’s discretion. Because a hearing did not appear necessary at that point and no exceptional circumstances were shown, the court denied without prejudice Sands’s motion for appointment of counsel. The court left open the possibility of reconsidering the issue if it later determined that a hearing was necessary.

Order to Show Cause and Case Status

The court directed the clerk to serve the order, petition, and attachments on Ralph Diaz and the Attorney General of California, and to serve the order on Sands. Diaz was ordered to file an answer within 60 days showing why the requested relief should not be granted, along with relevant portions of the transcribed state-court record. Diaz could instead file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds. Sands was given deadlines to respond to either an answer or such a motion.

This order did not decide the merits of Sands’s underlying ineffective-assistance claim or grant or deny the requested federal relief. It required the case to proceed to the response stage and warned Sands that failure to prosecute could result in dismissal.