Arthur Robbins, III v. Tom L. Carey

In this appeal, we consider whether, in the absence of a request from an unrepresented petitioner, a district court is required to consider, sua sponte, the option of staying and abeying a petition for a writ of habeas corpus when the petitioner has filed a “mixed” petition consisting of both exhausted and unexhausted claims. We hold that such a requirement would conflict with Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225 , 124 S.Ct. 2441 , 159 L.Ed.2d 338 (2004), and Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 , 125 S.Ct. 1528 , 161 L.Ed.2d 440 (2005), and we affirm the judgment of the district court.

I

On October 13, 1999, in a California state court, Arthur Robbins, III, pled no contest to possession with intent to sell crack cocaine. He had been arrested after a bag of cocaine had been found on the passenger-side floorboard of the car he was driving. Because Robbins had two prior convictions which the state court declined to excise, the court sentenced him to prison for 25 years to life under California’s “three strikes” law. Robbins appealed, and his appointed appellate attorney filed a “People v. Wende brief’ that simply asked the court to conduct an independent review of the record, without raising any…