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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?