Sammy Bianez Chavez v. Lawrence E. Wilson, Warden

Chavez appeals from an order denying a writ of habeas corpus without hearing. He is a California prisoner who pled guilty to a charge of petty theft with a prior petty theft conviction (a felony), and to a charge of possession of narcotics (heroin) for sale, with prior felony and narcotics convictions. He was sentenced under both convictions on the same day; the sentences are concurrent. He attacks only his conviction of the narcotics offense.

The only ground stated for granting the writ that appears to have any merit is that Chavez entered his plea in reliance on a promise, and without understanding its consequences. We set out his allegations in the margin. In es sence, Chavez makes two claims: 1. That he pled guilty because he was promised that he would be sent to the hospital and 2. that he did not know that he could be sent to prison. .

These allegations stretch credulity almost to the breaking point. We would have thought that, if they are true, both Chavez and his counsel would have protested when, at sentencing, the court did not exercise its power to start proceedings to have Chavez committed to the state narcotic detention, treatment and rehabilitation facility, but…