Gil v. Becerra

Background

Armando Gil sought federal habeas relief, meaning a federal court order addressing allegedly unlawful custody under federal law. His claims arose from state convictions in 2011 and 2013, followed by a 2014 sentence that included two life terms with the possibility of parole and a three-year term. The state supreme court summarily denied the claims he later presented in federal court. The federal court previously granted respondent’s motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part, after which respondent filed an answer. Gil did not respond to that answer.

Gil asserted three claims: (1) the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation improperly denied him time credits under Proposition 57; (2) the Department improperly denied him family visits; and (3) his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate or object to a prior-strike allegation.

Time Credits

The court denied the time-credit claim for several reasons. First, it concluded that the claim concerned the interpretation and application of California law, which cannot ordinarily be corrected through federal habeas review. Second, success would not necessarily result in Gil’s immediate or speedier release. Proposition 57 could make him eligible for parole consideration, but it did not require his release; the court explained that a civil-rights action, rather than a habeas action, would be the potential federal vehicle for such a claim.

The court also found that the claim rested on an incorrect factual premise. The record did not show that a prior-strike allegation or charge had been pleaded in the information for Gil’s 2014 convictions. The record instead showed that Gil began earning credits under Proposition 57 and that his minimum eligibility parole date changed from February 7, 2028, to December 13, 2025. The court concluded that the state court’s denial of this claim was not objectively unreasonable and denied the claim.

Family Visits

The court held that the family-visitation claim was not a proper habeas claim because it challenged a condition of confinement, not the validity or duration of Gil’s custody. The court nevertheless considered the merits in the alternative. It found that California regulations barred family visits for inmates convicted of a violent offense or any sex offense, including a conviction under California Penal Code section 261.5.

The court determined that the prison grievance decision relied on the sex-offense restriction, not the allegedly incorrect “violent conviction” designation that Gil identified. It therefore concluded that the claim would fail on the merits even if it could be decided in the habeas case. The claim was denied.

Assistance of Counsel

Gil argued that counsel in his 2014 case failed to investigate or challenge a prior-strike allegation, which Gil said later affected his time credits and family-visitation privileges. The court applied the ineffective-assistance standard from Strickland v. Washington, under which a petitioner must show both deficient attorney performance and resulting prejudice.

The court found that no prior-strike allegation or charge had been pleaded in the information for Gil’s 2014 convictions. Because there was no such allegation to investigate, the court concluded that counsel’s alleged inaction was not deficient performance and did not prejudice Gil. It denied this claim as well.

Disposition

The court concluded that the state courts’ decisions were not contrary to, or unreasonable applications of, clearly established federal law and were not based on unreasonable factual determinations. It denied the petition, entered judgment in favor of Patrick Covello, and closed the file. It also stated that a certificate of appealability would not issue, while noting that Gil may seek one from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.