3:10-cv-05753
N.D. Cal.Jan 12, 2012Background
- Petitioner Michael Schneider, a California real estate investor, committed a long-running fraud with 60 victims and losses exceeding $43 million and was convicted on 173 counts.
- The state consolidated Santa Clara and Santa Cruz cases via a global settlement, with sentencing in Santa Clara County after a presentence report.
- Schneider pled no contest to the Sixth Amended Complaint and admitted enhancements; sentencing occurred in February 2008, resulting in 28 years and four months, plus over $43 million in restitution and fines.
- The state appellate court affirmed the convictions and sentencing, denied addressing ineffectiveness claims on direct appeal, and the California Supreme Court denied review; Schneider later filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. 2254.
- The federal petition asserts three ineffective assistance of counsel claims and challenges the violent-felony designation under § 667.5(c)(21) as unconstitutional, arguing lack of investigation, double jeopardy issues, and equal protection/due process concerns.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance for failing to investigate before plea | Schneider seeks relief alleging Horowitz did not conduct a reasonable pre-plea investigation | Horowitz reasonably chose not to undertake further investigation; petitioner voluntarily entered the plea | Denied: insufficient showing of deficient performance or prejudice under Strickland. |
| Ineffective assistance regarding duplicative counts/double jeopardy | Failure to identify duplicative counts; plea strategy harmed Schneider | Global settlement required pleabased consolidation; no prejudice shown from duplicative counts | Denied: petitioner failed to show that trial or appellate strategy was deficient or prejudicial. |
| Constitutional challenge to violent-felony designation (equal protection/due process) | § 667.5(c)(21) irrationally classifies non-violent burglaries as violent felonies; counsel should have objected | Statutory scheme reasonably relates to protecting home sanctity and preventing violent crime; no compelling equality problem | Denied: state court correctly interpreted the statute; no constitutional violation shown. |
| Standard of review under AEDPA | State court erred in denying petition; decision unreasonably applied Strickland | State court reasonably applied AEDPA deferential standard | Denied: no unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. |
Key Cases Cited
- Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770 (2011) (summary denials reviewed deferentially under AEDPA; no need for accompanying explanation)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-pronged test for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Cullen v. Pinholster, 131 S. Ct. 1388 (2011) (doubly deferential review under AEDPA in habeas cases with IAC claims)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985) (prejudice inquiry for guilty/no-contest pleas hinges on whether plea would have gone to trial)