Guerrero v. Matterson

Background

Richard Orestes Guerrero sought federal habeas relief from state convictions arising from a 2008 gang shooting. After earlier trials, he pleaded nolo contendere in 2018 in the Santa Clara County Superior Court to voluntary manslaughter, assault with a firearm, and a gang sentencing enhancement. He received a 17-year sentence. His efforts to overturn the convictions in state court were unsuccessful.

Guerrero’s amended federal petition asserted that counsel was ineffective during his trial and that his plea was not knowing and voluntary because counsel’s trial performance was ineffective. The respondent moved to dismiss, arguing that the claims were procedurally defaulted and were not cognizable, meaning they were not claims that the federal habeas court could consider.

Procedural Default

The California Supreme Court denied Guerrero’s state habeas petition by citing In re Clark, along with authorities requiring adequate factual allegations and supporting evidence. The district court held that the Clark successive-petition rule was an independent and adequate state procedural ground. It was independent because the state court expressly relied on it separately from federal law, and it was adequate because the court found that the rule was clear, consistently applied, and established.

Once the respondent established the procedural bar, Guerrero had to show cause for failing to comply with the state rule and resulting prejudice, or show that refusing to consider the claims would produce a fundamental miscarriage of justice. The court found that Guerrero’s opposition did not meaningfully address Clark or provide specific facts showing that the state procedure was inadequate. His assertion that he had maintained his innocence also was not supported by facts establishing actual innocence. The court therefore concluded that the claims were procedurally defaulted and that Guerrero had not overcome the default.

Cognizability After the Plea

The court separately held that the claims were not cognizable even if they were not procedurally defaulted. A defendant who pleads guilty generally cannot later raise independent constitutional claims concerning events that occurred before the plea. Guerrero’s ineffective-assistance claim concerned counsel’s trial performance, rather than advice about whether to plead. The court concluded that the plea waived that trial-performance claim.

The court also rejected Guerrero’s argument that his plea was involuntary because he did not want to risk another trial with the same attorney. The court explained that, after a guilty plea, a defendant may challenge the plea’s voluntary and intelligent character by showing that counsel’s advice about pleading was inadequate. Guerrero’s allegation concerned counsel’s earlier trial performance, not inadequate advice to plead guilty, so the claim was not cognizable.

Disposition

Judge William H. Orrick granted the respondent’s motion to dismiss and dismissed the federal habeas action. The order did not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice. The court also ordered that no certificate of appealability issue, directed the clerk to enter judgment in favor of the respondent, terminate pending motions, and close the file.