Cate

(HC) Mendoza v. Cate

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaJanuary 11, 20212:09-cv-01710California3,021 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 ARQUIMEDES MENDOZA, No. 2:09-cv-1710 MCE DB P Petitioner, v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

MATTHEW CATE,

14 Respondent.

16 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding through counsel with a petition for a writ of 17 habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner challenges a 2004 judgment of conviction 18 for rape of an intoxicated person in violation of California Penal Code § 261(a)(3), which was 19 entered in the San Joaquin County Superior Court pursuant to his guilty plea. Petitioner raises two grounds for federal habeas relief: (1) ineffective assistance of counsel in the negotiation and entry of his guilty plea based on counsel’s misrepresentation that the conviction to which he was 23 pleading guilty was not a “strike” under California’s Three Strikes Law; and (2) ineffective 24 assistance of counsel in failing to investigate and challenge the validity of the prosecutor’s DNA 25 evidence.1 26 27 1 Petitioner also presents what he claims is a third…

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.