Powers v. Covello

Background

Anthony Powers, a state prisoner, challenged his California conviction under the federal statute allowing state prisoners to seek relief for constitutional violations in state custody. In 2017, he pleaded no contest in Napa County Superior Court to misuse of personal identifying information and misdemeanor possession of methamphetamine, admitted a prior strike conviction, and accepted a plea bargain providing for a two-year sentence that would increase to six years if he failed to appear for later proceedings. Powers failed to appear for sentencing and was later sentenced to six years.

Powers’s federal petition claimed that his plea was not knowing, intelligent, or voluntary because trial counsel did not advise him that his identity-theft offense could be reclassified as misdemeanor shoplifting under Proposition 47. The court had previously found a separate claim—that counsel was ineffective for failing to file a Proposition 47 reclassification motion—not cognizable in this proceeding, and had denied Powers’s request to stay the case while he pursued additional claims.

Claims and procedural history

The California Court of Appeal dismissed Powers’s appeal and denied his state petition, concluding that his claims were forfeited because he had not obtained a certificate of probable cause. The California Supreme Court summarily denied review. Powers later sought resentencing, but the state courts denied those requests. In the federal case, Powers raised additional challenges for the first time in his traverse, including challenges to the plea advisements, the factual basis for the plea, the sentence, the search of his wallet, and the performance of trial and appellate counsel.

The court declined to consider those new arguments because they had not been fairly presented to the California Supreme Court and therefore were unexhausted. A traverse is a filing responding to the opposing party’s answer; it is not ordinarily the proper document for adding new grounds for relief.

Procedural default

The court ruled that California’s certificate-of-probable-cause requirement was an independent and adequate state procedural rule. The rule requires a defendant challenging the validity of a guilty or no-contest plea to file a required statement and obtain the certificate before appealing. Because Powers did not obtain the certificate, the court held that his federal claim was procedurally defaulted, meaning the federal court generally could not review it.

Powers did not address the procedural-default argument and did not show cause and prejudice to excuse the default. He argued that trial counsel’s failure to seek the certificate constituted ineffective assistance, but he had not presented that independent ineffective-assistance claim to the state courts. The court also concluded that he could not show prejudice because the law concerning Proposition 47 and identity-theft convictions was unsettled when he pleaded guilty. Finally, Powers did not establish that refusing to consider the claim would produce a fundamental miscarriage of justice based on actual innocence.

Merits of the plea claim

Although the claim was procedurally defaulted, the court chose to reach its merits. Because the state courts had not decided the claim on the merits, the court reviewed it without the usual deference to the state-court decision. It held that a guilty plea must be knowing and voluntary, including a sufficient understanding of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences.

The court rejected Powers’s argument that his plea was unintelligent because counsel did not tell him that his offense could be reduced to misdemeanor shoplifting. When Powers entered his plea, no controlling authority required that result, and California appellate courts were divided on whether Proposition 47 applied to convictions under California Penal Code section 530.5. The California Supreme Court later held in People v. Jimenez that a section 530.5 conviction does not qualify as a theft offense eligible for reduction under the shoplifting provision. The court also concluded that using another person’s credit-card number for an unlawful purpose fell within section 530.5’s definition of misuse of personal identifying information.

Because it would have been legally inaccurate for counsel to tell Powers that Proposition 47 required misdemeanor treatment, the court held that the failure to provide that information did not make his plea unintelligent. It denied federal relief on the claim.

Disposition

The court denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, denied a certificate of appealability because Powers had not made the required substantial showing of a constitutional violation, directed the Clerk to enter judgment for Patrick Covello, and ordered the file closed.