Powers v. Covello

Background

Anthony Powers, a state prisoner at Mule Creek State Prison, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging a conviction from Napa County Superior Court. He pleaded guilty in 2017 to identity theft and possessing a controlled substance. Under the plea agreement, the contemplated sentence was two years, increasing to six years if he failed to appear at sentencing or committed a new offense. After Powers failed to appear for sentencing, he was sentenced to six years under the agreement.

Powers filed an appeal, a state post-conviction petition, and other requests in the California courts. The appeal was dismissed for failure to obtain a certificate of probable cause, and the California Supreme Court denied review. He then filed this federal petition and asked to proceed without paying the filing fee and to stay the federal case while he exhausted additional claims in state court.

Claims

Powers raised two claims in the federal petition. First, he alleged that his guilty plea was not knowing, voluntary, or intelligent because trial counsel did not advise him that his offense could potentially have been reclassified as a misdemeanor under Proposition 47. Second, he alleged that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file a Proposition 47 reclassification motion.

The court explained that a guilty plea generally prevents a person from later raising independent constitutional claims based on events before the plea. Applying that rule, the court held that the second claim was not cognizable under § 2254. The court liberally construed the petition and found that the first claim appeared cognizable and warranted an answer from the respondent. The court did not decide whether Powers would ultimately receive habeas relief.

Request for a Stay

Powers identified two additional, unexhausted claims: one alleging that appellate counsel failed to investigate and argue that he was actually innocent of identity theft, and another alleging that trial counsel failed to investigate his arrest and the charging of the identity-theft offense.

The court determined that only the first proposed claim appeared cognizable under § 2254. It concluded that the second proposed claim concerned alleged constitutional violations before Powers’s guilty plea and therefore was not cognizable. The court also found that a stay was unnecessary because Powers had more than six weeks remaining in the federal one-year filing period, and a properly filed state post-conviction petition could pause that period. The court further concluded that the first proposed claim would not relate back to the filing date of the original petition because it involved different facts and a different type of alleged misconduct.

The court noted that the record did not show whether Powers had begun state proceedings or was otherwise promptly exhausting the proposed claims. It found that he had not shown the exceptional circumstances required for a stay.

Disposition

The court granted Powers’s request to proceed without paying the filing fee. It denied his request for a stay without prejudice to requesting leave to amend after fully exhausting the proposed claims. The court issued an order to show cause and directed the respondent to file an answer within 60 days explaining why a writ of habeas corpus should not be granted on the claim found cognizable. The respondent could instead file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. also set deadlines for any response by Powers and warned that failure to comply with court orders could result in dismissal for failure to prosecute.