United States District Court, N.D. California
JOHN K. WILSON, Petitioner,
D. PARAMO, Respondent.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
RICHARD SEEBORG United States District Judge.
seeks federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 from
his state convictions. The petition for such relief is now
before the Court for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2243
and Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.
Respondent shall file a response to the petition on or before
July 10, 2017, unless an extension is granted.
in the Santa Clara County Superior Court, petitioner pleaded
no contest to 21 counts of lewd conduct with a child under
the age of 14 and was convicted after a bench trial on
another count of the same crime. Petitioner tried to withdraw
his no contest pleas, but the trial court denied his motion
and sentenced him to 50 years in state prison. Petitioner
appealed on grounds that his pleas were not voluntary.
appellate court found the evidence of voluntariness
“clearly contradictory.” People v.
Wilson, No. H037600, 2012 WL 6641486 at *6 (Cal.Ct.App.
Dec. 12, 2012). In consequence, it remanded the action to the
trial court to resolve the factual conflicts and then rule on
petitioner's withdrawal motion. “We express no
opinion as to how the court should resolve the factual
conflicts, or as to the outcome of the motion.”
remand, the trial court, after a hearing, denied the motion
to withdraw, and reinstated the pleas and sentence. (Pet. at
7.) Petitioner sought, but was denied, relief in the state
courts. This federal habeas petition followed.
Court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus
“in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the
judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in
custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties
of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). A
district court considering an application for a writ of
habeas corpus shall “award the writ or issue an order
directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should
not be granted, unless it appears from the application that
the applicant or person detained is not entitled
thereto.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243. Summary dismissal is
appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are
vague or conclusory, palpably incredible, or patently
frivolous or false. See Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908
F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990).
grounds for federal habeas relief, petitioner claims (1) the
trial court violated his constitutional rights when it
refused to allow him to withdraw his plea on remand; and (2)
defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance. When
liberally construed, these claims are cognizable on federal
Clerk shall serve a copy of this order, the petition and all
attachments thereto, on respondent and respondent's
counsel, the Attorney General for the State of California.
The Clerk shall also serve a copy of this order on
Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on petitioner
on or before July 10, 2017 an answer conforming in all
respects to Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases,
showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not be
granted based on petitioner's cognizable claims.
Respondent shall file with the answer and serve on petitioner
a copy of all portions of the state trial record that
previously have been transcribed and that are relevant to a
determination of the issues presented by the petition.
petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he shall do so by
filing a traverse with the Court and serving it on
respondent's counsel within ...