Adams v. Contra Costa County Superior Court

Background

Henry Desean Adams, an inmate at California Men’s Colony State Prison, filed a petition asking the federal court to review his state conviction and sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He also requested permission to proceed without paying the filing fee, which the court granted. The court directed the clerk to substitute Warden Josie Gastelo as the respondent because she was Adams’s current custodian.

A Contra Costa County jury found Adams guilty of three counts of assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury, one count of criminal threats, and one count of inflicting injury on a person with a dating relationship. Adams later entered a plea agreement resolving two pending criminal cases. He pleaded guilty to pandering by encouragement, driving or taking a vehicle without the owner’s consent, and evading an officer. The agreement stated that Adams had two prior serious felony strike convictions. The sentencing court imposed the agreed 24-year sentence, including five years for each prior serious felony conviction.

The Contra Costa County Superior Court denied Adams’s state habeas petition in a written decision. The California Court of Appeal and California Supreme Court later denied his petitions without written opinions. Adams then filed this federal petition.

Claims and analysis

Adams raised three claims.

1. Warrant claim. Adams argued that he was arrested on June 18, 2015, under a warrant that had been dismissed or canceled in 2009. The court held that his guilty plea prevented him from pursuing claims about constitutional violations occurring before the plea. The court also held that federal review of this Fourth Amendment claim was barred because the state court had given Adams a full and fair opportunity to litigate it and had reviewed it on the merits.

2. Sentence-enhancement claim. Adams argued that the two five-year increases based on his prior convictions were unwarranted because those convictions should not count as strikes. The court explained that a defendant generally cannot use a later proceeding to challenge the consequences of a voluntary and informed guilty plea, except by arguing that the plea was not voluntary or informed or that counsel gave improper advice. Adams was represented by counsel during the plea and sentencing hearings, and the sentencing court reviewed the agreement, the sentence, the enhancements, and the prior convictions with Adams and his attorney. Adams did not argue that his plea was involuntary or uninformed, or that his attorney improperly advised him. The court therefore held that he could not challenge the enhancements, which were part of the negotiated plea agreement.

3. Wrong-penal-code claim. Adams argued that the sentencing court treated three assault convictions as violations of California Penal Code section 245(a)(1) rather than section 245(a)(4). The court held that a claim based only on an error of state law is not grounds for federal habeas relief. It also reviewed the record and found no sentencing error. The court explained that the penal-code provisions had changed between the time of the charges, trial, and sentencing. At sentencing, defense counsel and the court clarified that the convictions were based on the theory involving force likely to produce great bodily injury, and the clerk recorded them that way in the judgment.

Ruling

The court denied Adams’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. It denied a certificate of appealability because reasonable judges would not find the court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. Judge Vince Chhabria directed the clerk to enter judgment for the respondent and close the file.