Knox v. People of the State of California

Filing 2

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
7
8
9

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12

ADRIAAN D. KNOX,
Petitioner,

13
14
15

vs.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

16

Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. C 12-6000 CRB (PR)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL

17
Petitioner, who is currently on parole, seeks a writ of habeas corpus under

18
19

28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging a conviction from the Monterey County Superior

20

Court.
BACKGROUND

21
22
23

After a jury trial, petitioner was convicted of various drug related charges
and was sentenced to state prison for a term of two years.

24

On appeal, petitioner contended, among other things, that the trial court

25

erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained during an unlawful

26

"protective sweep." On June 27, 2011, the California Court of Appeal affirmed

27

the judgment of the trial court and, on August 31, 2011, the Supreme Court of

28

California denied review.

1
2

DISCUSSION
A.

Standard of Review

3

This court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus "in behalf of

4

a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground

5

that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the

6

United States." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). The petition may not be granted with

7

respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in state court unless the

8

state court's adjudication of the claim: "(1) resulted in a decision that was

9

contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established

10

Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or (2)

11

resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the

12

facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding." Id. §

13

2254(d).
A habeas petition may be dismissed if it plainly appears from the face of

14
15

the petition and any exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to

16

relief. Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990). Summary

17

dismissal is appropriate if the allegations in the petition are vague or conclusory,

18

palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false. Id.

19

B.

20

Legal Claims
Petitioner seeks federal habeas relief on the ground that his Fourth

21

Amendment rights were violated by the trial court's denial of his motion to

22

suppress evidence obtained during an unlawful "protective sweep."

23

Petitioner's Fourth Amendment claim is barred by Stone v. Powell, 428

24

U.S. 465, 481-82, 494 (1976), which bars federal habeas review of Fourth

25

Amendment claims unless the state did not provide an opportunity for full and

26

fair litigation of those claims. Here, even if the state courts' determination of

27
28

2

1

petitioner's Fourth Amendment claim was improper, it cannot be remedied in

2

federal habeas because petitioner was provided a full and fair opportunity to

3

litigate the issues in the state courts. See Locks v. Sumner, 703 F.2d 403, 408

4

(9th Cir. 1983).

5

CONCLUSION

6

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is

7

DISMISSED.

8

Pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, a

9

certificate of appealability (COA) under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) is DENIED because

10

petitioner has not demonstrated that "reasonable jurists would find the district

11

court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong." Slack v.

12

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).

13

The clerk shall enter judgment in favor of respondent and close the file.

14

SO ORDERED.

15

DATED: Dec. 3, 2012

16

CHARLES R. BREYER
United States District Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
G:\PRO-SE\CRB\HC.12\Knox, D.12-6000.dismissal.wpd

27
28

3