Thomas Robert Mitchell and Robert Charles Shepherd, Jr. v. Superior Court for the County of Santa Clara, State of California

Mitchell and Shepherd were charged in California state court with various narcotics violations of the California Health and Safety Code. In a motion to dismiss the charges they claimed that police conduct interfered with their constitutional rights to effective assistance of counsel and due process of law, and that the police coerced them to work as undercover agents in violation of the constitutional guarantee against involuntary servitude. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss after an evidentiary hearing. Mitchell and Shepherd then withdrew their previously entered not-guilty pleas, and pled guilty to two of the six counts with which they were charged; the remaining four counts were dismissed pursuant to a plea bargain. The California Court of Appeal reviewed the issues raised in the motion to dismiss and affirmed the conviction. The California Supreme Court denied hearing. Mitchell and Shepherd then petitioned in federal district court for habeas corpus relief, once again asserting denial of the rights to effective assistance of counsel and due process of law, and the imposition of involuntary servitude. The district court denied the petition. We affirm.

I

On the…

concurring:

One ground on which the district judge denied habeas corpus was that appellants had failed to show that their convictions resulted from the police conduct of which they complained, or that that conduct had contributed to their convictions. I would affirm judgment on that ground. Thus, I concur in the result reached by the majority-

However, I disagree with the conclusion of the majority that by pleading guilty under § 1237.5 of the California Penal Code appellants lost their right to seek federal habeas corpus review of pre-plea constitutional violations. As I read Lefkowitz v. Newsome, 420 U.S. 283 , 95 S.Ct. 886 , 43 L.Ed.2d 196 (1975), it holds contrary to the majority’s reasoning.

In Newsome , the Court held that “when state law permits a defendant to plead guilty without forfeiting his right to judicial review of special constitutional issues, the defendant is not foreclosed from pursuing those constitutional claims in a federal habeas proceeding.” 420 U.S. at 293 , 95 S.Ct. at 892 .

Neither the source of the state right to appeal following a guilty plea nor the legislative purpose behind it is the critical consideration; rather, the right to seek federal…

632 F.2d 767 Thomas Robert MITCHELL and Robert Charles Shepherd, Jr., Petitioners-Appellants, v. SUPERIOR COURT FOR the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Respondent-Appellee. No. 79-2502. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted April 17, 1980. Decided Oct. 7, 1980. Rehearing Denied Nov. 21, 1980. Sheldon Portman, San Jose, Cal., for petitioners-appellants. Michael D. Whelan, Deputy Atty. Gen., San Francisco, Cal., argued, Don Jacobson, San Francisco, Cal., on brief, for respondent-appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Before MERRILL and WALLACE, Circuit Judges, and WYATT, * District Judge. WALLACE, Circuit Judge: 1 Mitchell and Shepherd were charged in California state court with various narcotics violations of the California Health and Safety Code. In a motion to dismiss the charges they claimed that police conduct interfered with their constitutional rights to effective assistance of counsel and due process of law, and that the police coerced them to work as undercover agents in violation of the constitutional guarantee against involuntary servitude. The trial court denied the motion…