Burgos v. Covello
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:23-cv-01077
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Burgos v. Covello, Judge Gilliam ordered the state to explain why Normandie S Burgos’s challenge to his conviction should not succeed.
Normandie S Burgos and the respondent in his federal challenge to the state convictions and sentence.
What happened
In Burgos v. Covello, Normandie S Burgos, a state prisoner, challenged his state-court convictions and 255-year sentence in a federal petition. The petition says six counts were reversed on appeal and the remaining convictions were largely affirmed.
Burgos claims his trial lawyer admitted guilt to certain non-forcible sex crimes without his permission and against his trial testimony. The court found that, understood broadly, this was a valid type of constitutional claim that can be considered in a federal challenge to state custody.
Judge Haywood Gilliam did not decide whether Burgos should win. Instead, the court ordered the respondent to answer by February 5, 2024, provide relevant parts of the state trial record, and explain why the petition should not be granted.
The detailed version
- Burgos v. Covello · No. 4:23-cv-01077
- Haywood Gilliam
- Dec. 5, 2023
Background
Normandie S Burgos, identified as a state prisoner, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 seeking federal review of his state-court custody. According to the petition, he received a 255-year sentence after convictions on multiple counts under California Penal Code sections 288(c)(1), 288a(c)(2)(C), 288a(b)(2), 286(b)(2), 286(b)(1), and 288a(b)(1). The petition states that his convictions were largely affirmed on appeal, except that six unidentified counts were reversed, and that the California Supreme Court denied review.
Claim and screening standard
Burgos raised one claim: trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by conceding his guilt on the charged non-forcible sex crimes without his consent and contrary to his own trial testimony. Ineffective assistance of counsel is a constitutional claim under the Sixth Amendment. The court explained that a federal court may consider a state-prisoner petition alleging custody violates the Constitution, federal law, or a treaty. At this initial stage, summary dismissal is appropriate only when the allegations are vague or conclusory, incredible, frivolous, or false. The court concluded that, read broadly, Burgos’s claim was cognizable, meaning it was legally capable of being considered in a federal proceeding.
Order
The court ordered the respondent to show cause why the petition should not be granted. The Clerk was directed to serve the order and a consent form concerning magistrate-judge jurisdiction on the respondent and the respondent’s attorney, identified as the Attorney General of California. The respondent was ordered to file and serve an answer by February 5, 2024, following the rules for federal petitions challenging state custody, and to provide relevant portions of the transcribed state trial record. Burgos could file a reply within 30 days after the answer was filed. The order also stated that Burgos must prosecute the case, keep the court and respondent informed of any address change, and comply with court orders; failure to do so could result in dismissal for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Judge Haywood Gilliam did not decide the merits of the ineffective-assistance claim.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.