Quant v. People of California

Filing 5

ORDER OF DISMISSAL. Signed by Judge Charles R. Breyer on 12/3/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(beS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/4/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

ARMANDO QUANT,
Petitioner,

10
11

vs.

12

PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA,

13

Respondent(s).

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. C 12-5736 CRB (PR)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
(Docket # 3)

14
15

Petitioner, a California prisoner currently on parole/probation from a 2009

16

conviction and sentence from Orange County Superior Court, has filed a petition

17

for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging a prior 2000

18

second degree robbery conviction (and expired three-year sentence) used to

19

enhance the current 2009 conviction and sentence. Petitioner alleges that the

20

prior 2000 conviction is invalid because counsel was ineffective.

21

Unfortunately for petitioner, the Supreme Court has made clear that an

22

expired conviction cannot be challenged in an attack upon the later sentence it

23

was used to enhance. See Lackawanna County Dist. Attorney v. Coss, 532 U.S.

24

394, 403-04 (2001) (prior conviction cannot be challenged in a § 2254 petition);

25

Daniels v. United States, 532 U.S. 374, 382-83 (2001) (prior conviction cannot

26

be challenged in a § 2255 motion).

27
28

[O]nce a state conviction is no longer open to direct or collateral
attack in its own right because the defendant failed to pursue those
remedies while they were available (or because the defendant did

1

3

so unsuccessfully), the conviction may be regarded as conclusively
valid. If that conviction is later used to enhance a criminal
sentence, the defendant generally may not challenge the enhanced
sentence through a petition under § 2254 on the ground that the
prior conviction was unconstitutionally obtained.

4

Coss, 532 U.S. at 403-04 (citation omitted). The only exception to this rule is for

5

a claim that the prior conviction was unconstitutional because there was a failure

6

to appoint counsel in violation of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel as set

7

forth in Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963). See Coss, 532 U.S. at 404;

8

Daniels, 532 U.S. at 382. There is no such claim here.

2

9

For the foregoing reasons, the court's November 26, 2012 order to show

10

cause is DISCHARGED and the petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28

11

U.S.C. § 2254 is DISMISSED under the rationale of Coss.

12

The clerk shall enter judgment in accordance with this order, terminate all

13

pending motions as moot (see docket #3) and close the file.

14

SO ORDERED.

15

DATED:

Dec. 3, 2012
CHARLES R. BREYER
United States District Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

G:\PRO-SE\CRB\HC.12\Quant, A.12-5736.dismissal.wpd

2