Krieger v. Baca
3:15-cv-00003
D. Nev.Aug 8, 2016Background
- Petitioner Matthew Krieger pleaded guilty (Feb. 2013) to voluntary manslaughter and aiding and abetting second-degree kidnapping and was sentenced to consecutive prison terms; Nevada Supreme Court affirmed on direct appeal (May 2014).
- Krieger filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (signed Dec. 27, 2014; received Jan. 5, 2015).
- After respondents moved to dismiss, they argued five asserted grounds were either noncognizable, conclusory, or unexhausted; Krieger did not oppose the motion.
- State postconviction habeas was not filed; a motion to correct an illegal sentence was pending in state court when respondents moved to dismiss.
- The district court dismissed Ground 1 as state-law (noncognizable), Grounds 3 and 5 as conclusory, and found Grounds 2 and 4 unexhausted, and gave Krieger 30 days to either dismiss and return to state court or move for a stay and abeyance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Consideration of sealed juvenile record at sentencing | Krieger: trial court violated due process by using sealed juvenile records | Respondents: issue is state-law (Nevada) and not cognizable on federal habeas | Dismissed as noncognizable (Ground 1) |
| Plea validity / coerced plea | Krieger: counsel deceived/pressured him into accepting plea; was promised no maximum or consecutive terms | Respondents: claim unexhausted in state courts | Unexhausted (Ground 2) |
| Alleged coerced/ nonverbal plea to kidnapping charge | Krieger: forced to enter guilty plea and did not verbally plead guilty | Respondents: claim is conclusory and vague | Dismissed as conclusory (Ground 3) |
| Ineffective assistance at sentencing/plea related to juvenile record and plea advice | Krieger: trial counsel failed to object to juvenile record use, misled him, and coerced plea | Respondents: claim unexhausted in state courts | Unexhausted (Ground 4) |
| Ineffective assistance of appellate counsel | Krieger: appellate counsel failed to raise issues properly causing affirmation | Respondents: claim is entirely conclusory without facts | Dismissed as conclusory (Ground 5) |
Key Cases Cited
- Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62 (1991) (state-law errors not cognizable on federal habeas)
- Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742 (1970) (guilty plea must be voluntary, knowing, and intelligent)
- Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 (1982) (federal habeas requires exhaustion of state remedies)
- O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838 (1999) (must present claims to highest state court)
- Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005) (stay-and-abeyance available in limited circumstances; good cause required)
- Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644 (2005) (pleading standards and specificity in federal habeas)
- Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490 (9th Cir. 1990) (vague, conclusory claims subject to dismissal)
- Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63 (1977) (summary dismissal of frivolous or unsupported habeas claims)
- Hubbart v. Knapp, 379 F.3d 773 (9th Cir. 2004) (state-law sentencing errors do not warrant habeas relief)
- Langford v. Day, 110 F.3d 1380 (9th Cir. 1996) (cannot convert state-law claim into federal by asserting due process)
- Mena v. Long, 813 F.3d 907 (9th Cir. 2016) (dismissal of petitions with unexhausted claims)
- Casey v. Moore, 386 F.3d 896 (9th Cir. 2004) (exhaustion requires presentation to highest state court)