Taylor

Taylor v. Hamlet

Good Law
88 F. App'x 220
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitFebruary 24, 2004No. 03-15676; D.C. No. CV-03-592-MMCCalifornia296 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Alonzo L. Taylor, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the dismissal of his habeas corpus petition, brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . He claims that the state trial court violated his right to due process by imposing, as part of his sentence following his nolo contendere plea to marijuana possession while in state prison, two restitution fines that were not part of his plea agreement and were imposed without a hearing on his ability to pay. He contends that the district court erred in dismissing this claim as non-cognizable under § 2254 because it did not challenge the validity or duration of his confinement. Insofar as Taylor challenges the imposition of restitution, this contention lacks merit because § 2254 provides that a federal court may entertain a habeas petition “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,” and Taylor does not seek release from custody. See United States v. Kramer, 195 F.3d 1129, 1130 (9th Cir. 1999) (interpreting 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ).

Taylor also contends that his plea was involuntary…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.