Hendon v. Burton

Background

Carlos Hendon filed a petition under Section 2254, the federal law allowing a state prisoner to challenge a state conviction or sentence. The petition challenged a 2000 Monterey County felony conviction for aggravated assault on a correctional officer by an inmate and two 2001 Monterey County misdemeanor convictions for indecent exposure after illegally entering an occupied area. Hendon had pleaded guilty to the felony and no contest to the misdemeanors, and he did not appeal either conviction or sentence.

Hendon’s federal petition asserted claims involving ineffective assistance of counsel during the preliminary hearing, inadequate advice about his guilty plea, and his alleged incompetence when he entered the plea because medication impaired his judgment. The federal court had previously found those claims sufficient to require Burton to respond. Burton moved to dismiss, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction over the misdemeanor challenges because Hendon was no longer in custody under those convictions and that the felony challenge was untimely. Hendon also requested permission to amend the petition to invoke an exception concerning attorney error in an earlier state proceeding.

Request for clarification

Hendon asked whether the federal case also challenged a 1995 Santa Clara County conviction. The court explained that the petition transferred to this case challenged only the Monterey County convictions. The court stated that any challenge to the Santa Clara County conviction would have to be brought in a separate federal petition.

Request to amend

The court denied Hendon’s request for leave to amend. It concluded that the proposed amendment would be futile because the asserted exception would not give the court jurisdiction over the misdemeanor convictions or make the felony challenge timely.

Misdemeanor convictions

The court granted Burton’s motion to dismiss Hendon’s challenges to the 2001 misdemeanor convictions for lack of federal habeas jurisdiction. A federal habeas petitioner must be in custody under the conviction or sentence being challenged when the petition is filed. The court determined that Hendon’s 180-day misdemeanor sentence had been completed by early 2002. Although Hendon remained in custody under other convictions, the record did not show that he was still serving the misdemeanor sentence or that its commencement had been delayed.

The court therefore held that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the misdemeanor challenges. It also explained that the exception Hendon invoked for procedural default—meaning failure to comply with a state procedural rule—could not overcome the separate custody requirement.

Felony conviction and filing deadline

The court granted the motion to dismiss the challenge to the 2000 felony conviction as untimely. Under the federal one-year limitations period for state-prisoner habeas petitions, the felony judgment became final on November 5, 2000, when the time to appeal expired. The federal filing deadline was November 5, 2001. Hendon filed this federal petition in August 2021, more than two decades after that deadline.

The court considered whether the deadline could have started later or been paused. It found no basis for delayed commencement because Hendon did not identify unconstitutional state action preventing him from filing, a newly recognized retroactive constitutional right, or a later-discovered factual basis for his claims. The court also found no statutory tolling because Hendon’s first state habeas petition was filed after the federal limitations period had already expired. Finally, the court ruled that Hendon’s lack of legal sophistication and difficulty finding legal authorities in the prison law library did not establish the extraordinary circumstances required for equitable tolling.

The court noted that Hendon had known the relevant facts about counsel’s conduct and the plea proceedings since 2000 and 2001. It therefore concluded that the challenge to the felony conviction was untimely.

Disposition

The court denied Hendon’s request for leave to file an amended petition, granted Burton’s motion to dismiss the petition as untimely, and denied a certificate of appealability. It directed the clerk to enter judgment in favor of Burton and close the file. The court disposed of the case on jurisdictional and filing-deadline grounds rather than deciding whether Hendon’s underlying constitutional claims were meritorious.