Hart v. People of California

Background

Stephen S. Hart filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus without a lawyer. In 1996, he pleaded guilty in Sonoma County Superior Court to one misdemeanor count and one felony count of statutory rape under California Penal Code section 261.5. According to the petition, the plea agreement provided that the felony count would be reduced to a misdemeanor after Hart completed his sentence.

Hart completed the sentence and later asked the Sonoma County Superior Court to reduce the felony count under the plea agreement. That request was denied on May 28, 2020. Hart then filed this federal petition, stating that he had not previously presented the claim to another court.

Court’s analysis

The court held that it lacked federal habeas jurisdiction because Hart was not “in custody” under the conviction or sentence he was challenging. Federal habeas law requires the petitioner to be in custody under the challenged conviction or sentence when the petition is filed. The court found that Hart had completed the sentence imposed by the Sonoma County Superior Court and was therefore no longer in custody under that sentence.

The opinion’s footnote states that Hart appeared to be in the custody of Indiana, but that he was not challenging the legality of that custody. The court therefore dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction rather than deciding whether the plea agreement required California to reduce the felony count.

Disposition

Judge Haywood Gilliam granted Hart’s request to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning without paying the filing fee. The court dismissed the habeas petition with prejudice for lack of federal habeas jurisdiction, denied a certificate of appealability, directed the clerk to enter judgment for the People of California and against Hart, and closed the case.