Opinion
Case No. 8:19-cv-01348-PSG (AFM)
07-17-2019
RICKY ALEXANDER DILLINGHAM, Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF ORANGE COUNTY, Respondent.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DISMISSING PETITION
On July 10, 2019, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of error coram nobis. The petition seeks to set aside Petitioner's conviction in Orange County Superior Court Case No. 14NM13940. (ECF No. 1 at 2-4.) For the following reasons, the petition is subject to summary dismissal. See Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts.
BACKGROUND
On January 9, 2015, Petitioner pleaded guilty to one count of willful infliction of corporal injury in violation of section 273.5(a) of the California Penal Code. Pursuant to a plea agreement, Petitioner received a suspended sentence and was placed on informal probation for three years. (ECF No. 1 at 2-3, Exhibits A & B.) Beginning in March 2015, Petitioner filed a series of petitions in the California courts seeking to withdraw his plea. Those petitions were denied. (ECF No. 1, Exhibits B-E.)
In April 2016, the Anaheim City Attorney's Office filed a motion to terminate Petitioner's probation. On April 20, 2016, the motion was granted, and Petitioner's probation was terminated. (ECF No. 1, Ex. B.)
DISCUSSION
A. This Court cannot grant Petitioner coram nobis relief.
As pleaded, the present petition requests coram nobis relief. Such relief may be available to challenge the validity of a conviction even though the defendant is no longer in custody and the sentence has been fully served. See United States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502, 512-513 (1954). However, "[c]oram nobis relief is not available in federal court to attack a state court conviction." Casas-Castrillon v. Warden San Diego, Correctional Facility, 265 Fed. App'x. 639, 639 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing Madigan v. Wells, 224 F.2d 577, 578 n.2 (9th Cir.1955)); see also Williams v. Waggener, 271 Fed. App'x. 603, 604 (9th Cir. 2008); Brandon v. Los Angeles Cty. Superior Court, 2015 WL 1541567, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2015). Thus, this Court lacks jurisdiction to grant the relief Petitioner seeks.
B. Petitioner may not proceed by way of 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
A petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 "is the exclusive avenue for a state court prisoner to challenge the constitutionality of his detention." White v. Lambert, 370 F.3d 1002, 1007 (9th Cir. 2004), overruled on other grounds, Hayward v. Marshall, 603 F.3d 546 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc). Even construing the petition as one brought under section 2254, however, it is subject to dismissal.
To obtain relief under section 2254, a petitioner must be "in custody" as a result of the conviction or sentence he wishes to challenge. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). The custody requirement is jurisdictional. Bailey v. Hill, 599 F.3d 976, 978 (9th Cir. 2010). A petitioner is not in custody if the sentence imposed for the challenged conviction has fully expired at the time the habeas corpus petition is filed. Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 492 (1989) (per curiam). Further, once the petitioner is unconditionally released, the collateral consequences of the conviction are not sufficient to render the petitioner in custody for the purposes of habeas corpus. Maleng, 490 U.S. at 492. As discussed above, in January 2015, Petitioner was sentenced to three years of probation. His probation was terminated in April 2016. Because Petitioner is no longer in custody based on his conviction in Orange County Superior Court Case No. 14NM13940, he cannot challenge that conviction in a section 2254 petition.
Finally, the Court notes that Petitioner is currently in state custody pursuant to a separate state court conviction. See Dillingham v. Asuncion, Case No. 2:18-cv-01826-PSG (AFM) (challenging Petitioner's conviction in Long Beach Superior Court Case No. NA101904). Despite the general rule of preclusion, a state prisoner whose current sentence has been enhanced by a prior conviction may, in limited circumstances, challenge that prior conviction even though the sentence on that conviction has expired. See Lackawanna County Dist. Attorney v. Coss, 532 U.S. 394, 401, 403-404 (2001). Petitioner here, however, does not allege that his conviction in Case No. 14NM13940 was used to enhance his current sentence. Moreover, the record confirms that it was not. See Dillingham v. Asuncion, Case No. 2:18-cv-01826-PSG (AFM) (Clerk's Transcript at 143-146; Reporter's Transcript on Appeal at 904).
The Court takes judicial notice of official court records. See Fed. R. Evid. 201.
In Lackawanna, the Supreme Court held that once a state conviction is no longer open to direct or collateral attack "in its own right," it 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." Lackawanna, 532 U.S. at 401, 403-404. Limited exceptions to this holding exist, including, for example, when the conviction was obtained in violation of the right to the appointment of counsel under Gideon v. Wainright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963). Lackawanna, 532 U.S. at 404-405.
ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that Judgment be entered dismissing this petition for lack of jurisdiction. DATED: July 17, 2019
/s/_________
PHILIP S. GUTIERREZ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE