Claude Dove v. Charles Ryan

Claude Raymond Dove appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253, and we affirm.

Dove claims that he is entitled to habeas relief because his trial counsel’s inaccurate advice about the government’s burden of proof with regard to prior convictions for sentence enhancement purposes caused him to reject a beneficial plea offer. Specifically, Dove claims that his trial counsel told him that prior convictions had to be proven “beyond a reasonable doubt” and that, given that burden, the government could not prove any prior convictions beyond the one prior conviction that Dove would be admitting if he accepted the plea offer. Dove was convicted at trial and, partly due to sentence enhancements for prior convictions proved under a “clear and convincing” burden, sentenced to a longer term of imprisonment than the maximum term under the foregone plea deal.

In state habeas proceedings, Dove’s ineffective assistance claim was summarily denied by the state trial court, which simply asserted that he had failed to present a colorable claim for relief. The Arizona Court of Appeals and Arizona…