Opinion
No. C 05-1634 MMC (PR).
June 13, 2005
ORDER OF DISMISSAL (Docket No. 2)
Petitioner, a California prisoner incarcerated at Salinas Valley State Prison, filed the above-titled petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his state court conviction. He has applied for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
BACKGROUND
In 2002, in Monterey County Superior Court, petitioner entered a plea of nolo contendere to charges of attempted murder and rape. He was sentenced to state prison for a term of 28 years to life. Petitioner did not file a direct appeal; he did, however, file petitions for a writ of habeas corpus in the Monterey County Superior Court, the California Court of Appeal, and the Supreme Court of California, raising in each instance the same claims raised herein. All three habeas petitions were denied.
DISCUSSION
A. Standard of Review
This Court may entertain a petition for a writ of habeas corpus "in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); Rose v. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). A district court shall "award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto." 28 U.S.C. § 2243.
B. Legal Claims
Petitioner confessed to the police that he committed the charged crimes. He claims that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because counsel did not move to suppress his confession. A defendant who pleads guilty cannot later raise in habeas corpus proceedings independent claims relating to the deprivation of constitutional rights that occurred before the plea of guilty. See Haring v. Prosise, 462 U.S. 306, 319-20 (1983) (holding guilty plea forecloses consideration of pre-plea constitutional deprivations); Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 266-67 (1973) (same). The failure of counsel to file a motion to suppress petitioner's confession occurred prior to the entry of his guilty plea, and, consequently, petitioner is precluded from pursuing by way of a federal habeas petition a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel based on such failure. See Moran v. Godinez, 57 F.3d 690, 700 (9th Cir. 1994) (refusing to consider, as pre-plea constitutional violation, contention that petitioner's attorneys were ineffective in not attempting to prevent use of confession). Accordingly, petitioner's claim is not cognizable.
CONCLUSION
In light of the foregoing, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED for failure to state a cognizable claim. The application to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED.
This order terminates Docket No. 2.
The Clerk shall close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.