Cambria v. NHSP

• Court: District Court, D. New Hampshire
• Decided: October 11, 2001
• Docket: CV-01-195-B
• Status: Published

Opinion

Cambria v. NHSP CV-01-195-B 10/11/01

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Jeffrey Cambria

v. Civil N o . 01-CV-195-B Opinion N o . 2001DNH189 Warden, New Hampshire State Prison

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

I have before me Jeffrey Cambria’s petition for a writ of

habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Cambria seeks

to withdraw his 1997 guilty plea to driving while certified as an

habitual defender, N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 262:23, because his

change-of-plea and sentencing hearings were tainted by

irregularities which undermined his federal rights. The petition

identifies two specific irregularities. First, he claims that

the prosecutor did not live up to a bargained-for promise to

recommend that his sentence be made concurrent with a different

sentence Cambria was then serving. Second, he argues that his

counsel was not licensed to practice law in the State of New

Hampshire. I will assume, solely for the sake of argument, that

Cambria’s claims implicate federal rights cognizable under 28

U.S.C. § 2254. Even s o , I am obliged to dismiss the petition.

28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2) precludes federal judges from granting a

petition premised on claims adjudicated on the merits in State

court “unless the adjudication of the claim . . . resulted in a

decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the

facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court

proceeding.” In this case, Superior Court Justice Kenneth R.

McHugh rejected Cambria’s first claim on two, independent factual

grounds: (1) that Cambria’s guilty plea was in fact “naked” and

not conditioned on an enforceable sentencing agreement; and (2)

that Cambria’s sentence subsequently was amended so that it now

in fact does run concurrent with the prior sentence. See Exhibit

K in Support of the State’s Answer to the Petition. Justice

McHugh also rejected Cambria’s second claim by adopting the

State’s argument that, as a matter of fact, the plea was knowing,

voluntary, and intelligent, and that, in any event, Cambria was

represented by two attorneys, one of whom was licensed to

practice in New Hampshire. See Exhibit N in Support of the

-2- State’s Answer to the Petition (adopting State’s argument set

forth Exhibit M ) . These factual determinations, which undermine

the premises on which the petition’s viability depends, are fully

supported by the record.

Accordingly, I dismiss Cambria’s petition for a writ of

habeas corpus [document n o . 1 ] . The Clerk is directed to close

the case.

SO ORDERED.

Paul Barbadoro Chief Judge

October 1 1 , 2001

cc: Jeffrey Cambria, pro se Ann M. Rice, Esq.

-3-