Hendon v. Burton
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:21-cv-06566
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Hendon v. Burton, Judge Davila ordered an answer to a prisoner’s habeas petition, allowing claims about counsel and guilty-plea competence to proceed.
Carlos Hendon’s habeas case will proceed to the response stage. Robert Burton must answer the petition and provide relevant state-court records; the order does not grant or deny habeas relief.
What happened
Carlos Hendon asked the federal court to review his state-court sentence, arguing that his lawyers were ineffective and that medication affected his ability to plead guilty. The case is Hendon v. Burton.
The court found that Hendon’s claims could be considered under the federal law governing challenges to state convictions and required Respondent Robert Burton to answer. The court did not decide whether Hendon should win.
Judge Edward J. Davila ordered Burton to respond within 90 days and provide relevant portions of the state-court record. Hendon may file a response within 30 days after receiving the answer.
The detailed version
- Hendon v. Burton · No. 4:21-cv-06566
- Haywood Gilliam
- Jan. 4, 2023
Background
Carlos Hendon, a California prisoner representing himself, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 seeking federal review of his sentence for a state conviction. The petition states that he pleaded guilty to unidentified charges in Monterey County Superior Court in approximately 2000 or 2001 and received a sentence of four years and six months in state prison.
The case was initially closed because Hendon did not pay the filing fee, but it was reopened after he showed good cause, and he later paid the fee. The court then asked Hendon to provide information about whether he had presented his claims to the California courts. Hendon stated that he had presented all of his claims to the California Supreme Court in April 2021. The court’s review of the California court database showed a habeas matter filed on April 30, 2021, that was denied on July 14, 2021, citing In re Robbins.
Claims
Hendon raised three claims: ineffective assistance of counsel during his preliminary hearing; ineffective assistance based on allegedly inadequate advice about his guilty plea; and an invalid guilty plea because he was incompetent while under the influence of medication that impaired his judgment. He asserted that he discovered the legal basis for these claims in early 2020 and did not know, and reasonably should not have known, the information earlier.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that it may review a state prisoner’s custody only when the custody violates the Constitution, federal laws, or treaties. At this stage, the court concluded that Hendon’s claims were legally recognizable under § 2254 and required an answer from Burton. This was not a decision on whether the claims were true or whether Hendon was entitled to relief.
Order
The court ordered the Clerk to serve the order on Burton, Burton’s attorney, and Hendon. Burton must file and serve an answer within 90 days showing why the requested writ should not issue, along with relevant portions of the previously transcribed state trial record. Hendon may file and serve a response within 30 days after receiving the answer. The order also stated that Hendon must prosecute the case, comply with court orders, keep the parties informed of any address change, and serve his communications on Burton’s counsel. Failure to do so may result in dismissal for failure to prosecute.
Judge Edward J. Davila signed the order. The supplied case metadata identifies Haywood Gilliam as the judge, but the opinion text is signed by Edward J. Davila.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.