1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 Kevin Albert Richard COSET, Case No.: 21-cv-1439-MMA-AGS 4 Petitioner, REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO DENY HABEAS CORPUS 5 v. PETITION (ECF 1) 6 Kathleen ALLISON, Secretary of California Department of Corrections and 7 Rehabilitation, et al., 8 Respondents. 9 10 Petitioner Kevin Coset seeks a writ of habeas corpus. Most of his claims are waived 11 due to his valid guilty plea. See Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 267 (1973). The 12 remaining claims are either unexhausted or noncognizable. 13 BACKGROUND 14 In 2013, as he later admitted, petitioner Kevin Coset “repeatedly shot and stabbed 15 an acquaintance and wrapped his body in a sleeping bag.” People v. Coset, No. D074258, 16 2020 WL 1670641, at *1 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. Apr. 6, 2020). Coset was charged with first- 17 degree murder, including a lying-in-wait special circumstance allegation as well as firearm 18 and deadly-weapon enhancement allegations. Id. Over the next several years, Coset fired 19 his first two attorneys, and the pretrial litigation focused on his competency to stand trial 20 and represent himself. Id. at *2. In 2017, the trial court granted Coset’s request to represent 21 himself, and he finally proceeded to trial alone. Id. 22 After the prosecution’s opening statement, Coset passed the prosecutor “a note 23 asking if he could plead no contest to the charges.” Coset, 2020 WL 1670641, at *2. While 24 the prosecution refused that offer, the parties soon reached a plea deal. Id. In exchange for 25 the prosecutor’s agreement to dismiss the special-circumstance allegation—which carried 26 a life sentence without parole—Coset pleaded guilty to first-degree premeditated murder 27 and admitted the weapons-related enhancement allegations. Id. at *3. 28 1 About a month later, Coset moved to withdraw his guilty plea. Coset, 2020 WL 2 1670641, at *3. The trial court denied that motion and sentenced Coset to prison for 3 50 years to life, plus one year, and ordered him to pay over $10,000 in assessments, fees, 4 and fines. Id. at *1, *1 n.3. The California Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, id. at *8, 5 and the California Supreme Court denied review. (See ECF 5-18 (unpublished California 6 Supreme Court denial).) 7 Coset petitioned the California Court of Appeal for a writ of habeas corpus, claiming 8 that (1) his guilty plea was invalid because he was under duress; (2) his speedy-trial rights 9 were violated; (3) his counsel provided ineffective assistance at every critical stage of the 10 pretrial proceedings (and one defense counsel had a conflict of interest); and (4) the 11 cumulative effect of these errors deprived him of a fair trial and resulted in a miscarriage 12 of justice. (ECF 5-19, at 3–15.) The Court rejected Coset’s petition, ruling that his guilty 13 plea was valid. (ECF 5-20, at 1.) Because a valid guilty plea abandons any claim of “error 14 in pretrial proceedings,” the Court concluded that Coset’s other claims were waived. (Id.) 15 The California Supreme Court denied review of that decision. (ECF 5-22, at 1.) 16 DISCUSSION 17 In his federal habeas petition, Coset argues (1) his speedy-trial rights were violated; 18 (2) his first defense attorney was ineffective in bail proceedings, pretrial investigation, and 19 trial preparations; (3) the “cumulative effect of multiple errors” by the state court, 20 prosecutor, and defense counsel denied his right to a fair trial; and (4) his fines and fees 21 were excessive. (See ECF 1.) Crucially, Coset does not contest the validity of his guilty 22 plea. (See ECF 5-16, at 10 (Coset acknowledges that he “initiated the request to plead 23 immediately after the prosecutor presented opening statement” and that he “agreed to plead 24 guilty to first degree murder with the gun and knife enhancements after the prosecutor 25 removed the special circumstances allegation.”).) 26 A. Waiver of Pre-Plea Errors 27 Coset’s valid guilty plea dooms all his claims of pre-plea error. “[A] guilty plea 28 represents a break in the chain of events which has preceded it in the criminal process.” 1 Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 267 (1973). Once a criminal defendant admits to guilt 2 in open court, he cannot “raise independent claims relating to the deprivation of 3 constitutional rights that occurred prior to the entry of the guilty plea.” Id.; see also 4 Mahrt v. Beard, 849 F.3d 1164, 1170 (9th Cir. 2017) (same). Thus, Coset’s speedy-trial 5 and ineffective assistance claims are foreclosed. Similarly, much of his third ground for 6 relief—the “cumulative effect of multiple errors”—deals with alleged pre-plea issues that 7 are waived. The Court addresses below the remaining unwaived claims. 8 B. Cumulative Effect of Multiple Errors / Right to Counsel 9 The one portion of Coset’s “cumulative effect” argument that survives his guilty plea 10 is his claim that he was “without counsel at the time of his guilty plea, and sentencing.” 11 (ECF 1, at 8.) But this claim fails on procedural grounds: it was never exhausted in state 12 court. Under the exhaustion doctrine, petitioners must “fairly present[]” their “federal 13 claim[s] to the highest state court with jurisdiction to consider it.” Johnson v. Zenon, 14 88 F.3d 828, 829 (9th Cir. 1996); see also 28 U.S.C. 2254(b)(1)(A) (requiring federal 15 habeas applicants to “exhaust[] the remedies available in the courts of the State” before 16 seeking federal relief). Yet Coset never argued—nor even mentioned—this ground to the 17 California Supreme Court. (See generally ECF 5-17.) Thus, he cannot raise it here. See 18 Aiken v. Spalding, 841 F.2d 881, 883 (9th Cir. 1988) (per curiam) (holding that courts “may 19 examine the exhaustion question sua sponte”). 20 C. Fines-and-Fees Claim 21 Finally, Coset challenges his fines and fees. (ECF 1, at 9.) But these are not proper 22 subjects of habeas relief. A writ of habeas corpus remedies unlawful imprisonment, not 23 lesser restraints on liberty. Federal habeas proceedings are only available for claims that a 24 prisoner “is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United 25 States.” Bailey v. Hill, 599 F.3d 976, 980 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a)). 26 “A monetary fine is not a sufficient restraint on liberty to meet the ‘in custody’ requirement 27 . . . [n]or does potential future incarceration for failure to pay such a fine provide the 28 requisite subject matter jurisdiction.” Williamson v. Gregoire, 151 F.3d 1180, 1184 1 || (9th Cir. 1998) (citation omitted); see also Bailey, 599 F.3d at 980-81 (noting that habeas 2 ||claims are not cognizable unless they ““‘call into question the lawfulness of conviction or 3 || confinement’ or challenge the fact, length, or conditions of the petitioner’s custody or ‘seek 4 ||immediate or speedier release’” (citations omitted)). 5 Therefore, Coset’s fees and fines cannot be challenged in this habeas proceeding. 6 ||D.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 Kevin Albert Richard COSET, Case No.: 21-cv-1439-MMA-AGS 4 Petitioner, REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO DENY HABEAS CORPUS 5 v. PETITION (ECF 1) 6 Kathleen ALLISON, Secretary of California Department of Corrections and 7 Rehabilitation, et al., 8 Respondents. 9 10 Petitioner Kevin Coset seeks a writ of habeas corpus. Most of his claims are waived 11 due to his valid guilty plea. See Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 267 (1973). The 12 remaining claims are either unexhausted or noncognizable. 13 BACKGROUND 14 In 2013, as he later admitted, petitioner Kevin Coset “repeatedly shot and stabbed 15 an acquaintance and wrapped his body in a sleeping bag.” People v. Coset, No. D074258, 16 2020 WL 1670641, at *1 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. Apr. 6, 2020). Coset was charged with first- 17 degree murder, including a lying-in-wait special circumstance allegation as well as firearm 18 and deadly-weapon enhancement allegations. Id. Over the next several years, Coset fired 19 his first two attorneys, and the pretrial litigation focused on his competency to stand trial 20 and represent himself. Id. at *2. In 2017, the trial court granted Coset’s request to represent 21 himself, and he finally proceeded to trial alone. Id. 22 After the prosecution’s opening statement, Coset passed the prosecutor “a note 23 asking if he could plead no contest to the charges.” Coset, 2020 WL 1670641, at *2. While 24 the prosecution refused that offer, the parties soon reached a plea deal. Id. In exchange for 25 the prosecutor’s agreement to dismiss the special-circumstance allegation—which carried 26 a life sentence without parole—Coset pleaded guilty to first-degree premeditated murder 27 and admitted the weapons-related enhancement allegations. Id. at *3. 28 1 About a month later, Coset moved to withdraw his guilty plea. Coset, 2020 WL 2 1670641, at *3. The trial court denied that motion and sentenced Coset to prison for 3 50 years to life, plus one year, and ordered him to pay over $10,000 in assessments, fees, 4 and fines. Id. at *1, *1 n.3. The California Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, id. at *8, 5 and the California Supreme Court denied review. (See ECF 5-18 (unpublished California 6 Supreme Court denial).) 7 Coset petitioned the California Court of Appeal for a writ of habeas corpus, claiming 8 that (1) his guilty plea was invalid because he was under duress; (2) his speedy-trial rights 9 were violated; (3) his counsel provided ineffective assistance at every critical stage of the 10 pretrial proceedings (and one defense counsel had a conflict of interest); and (4) the 11 cumulative effect of these errors deprived him of a fair trial and resulted in a miscarriage 12 of justice. (ECF 5-19, at 3–15.) The Court rejected Coset’s petition, ruling that his guilty 13 plea was valid. (ECF 5-20, at 1.) Because a valid guilty plea abandons any claim of “error 14 in pretrial proceedings,” the Court concluded that Coset’s other claims were waived. (Id.) 15 The California Supreme Court denied review of that decision. (ECF 5-22, at 1.) 16 DISCUSSION 17 In his federal habeas petition, Coset argues (1) his speedy-trial rights were violated; 18 (2) his first defense attorney was ineffective in bail proceedings, pretrial investigation, and 19 trial preparations; (3) the “cumulative effect of multiple errors” by the state court, 20 prosecutor, and defense counsel denied his right to a fair trial; and (4) his fines and fees 21 were excessive. (See ECF 1.) Crucially, Coset does not contest the validity of his guilty 22 plea. (See ECF 5-16, at 10 (Coset acknowledges that he “initiated the request to plead 23 immediately after the prosecutor presented opening statement” and that he “agreed to plead 24 guilty to first degree murder with the gun and knife enhancements after the prosecutor 25 removed the special circumstances allegation.”).) 26 A. Waiver of Pre-Plea Errors 27 Coset’s valid guilty plea dooms all his claims of pre-plea error. “[A] guilty plea 28 represents a break in the chain of events which has preceded it in the criminal process.” 1 Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 267 (1973). Once a criminal defendant admits to guilt 2 in open court, he cannot “raise independent claims relating to the deprivation of 3 constitutional rights that occurred prior to the entry of the guilty plea.” Id.; see also 4 Mahrt v. Beard, 849 F.3d 1164, 1170 (9th Cir. 2017) (same). Thus, Coset’s speedy-trial 5 and ineffective assistance claims are foreclosed. Similarly, much of his third ground for 6 relief—the “cumulative effect of multiple errors”—deals with alleged pre-plea issues that 7 are waived. The Court addresses below the remaining unwaived claims. 8 B. Cumulative Effect of Multiple Errors / Right to Counsel 9 The one portion of Coset’s “cumulative effect” argument that survives his guilty plea 10 is his claim that he was “without counsel at the time of his guilty plea, and sentencing.” 11 (ECF 1, at 8.) But this claim fails on procedural grounds: it was never exhausted in state 12 court. Under the exhaustion doctrine, petitioners must “fairly present[]” their “federal 13 claim[s] to the highest state court with jurisdiction to consider it.” Johnson v. Zenon, 14 88 F.3d 828, 829 (9th Cir. 1996); see also 28 U.S.C. 2254(b)(1)(A) (requiring federal 15 habeas applicants to “exhaust[] the remedies available in the courts of the State” before 16 seeking federal relief). Yet Coset never argued—nor even mentioned—this ground to the 17 California Supreme Court. (See generally ECF 5-17.) Thus, he cannot raise it here. See 18 Aiken v. Spalding, 841 F.2d 881, 883 (9th Cir. 1988) (per curiam) (holding that courts “may 19 examine the exhaustion question sua sponte”). 20 C. Fines-and-Fees Claim 21 Finally, Coset challenges his fines and fees. (ECF 1, at 9.) But these are not proper 22 subjects of habeas relief. A writ of habeas corpus remedies unlawful imprisonment, not 23 lesser restraints on liberty. Federal habeas proceedings are only available for claims that a 24 prisoner “is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United 25 States.” Bailey v. Hill, 599 F.3d 976, 980 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a)). 26 “A monetary fine is not a sufficient restraint on liberty to meet the ‘in custody’ requirement 27 . . . [n]or does potential future incarceration for failure to pay such a fine provide the 28 requisite subject matter jurisdiction.” Williamson v. Gregoire, 151 F.3d 1180, 1184 1 || (9th Cir. 1998) (citation omitted); see also Bailey, 599 F.3d at 980-81 (noting that habeas 2 ||claims are not cognizable unless they ““‘call into question the lawfulness of conviction or 3 || confinement’ or challenge the fact, length, or conditions of the petitioner’s custody or ‘seek 4 ||immediate or speedier release’” (citations omitted)). 5 Therefore, Coset’s fees and fines cannot be challenged in this habeas proceeding. 6 ||D. Certificate of Appealability 7 Under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, this Court must 8 ||“issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the 9 || applicant.” /d.; see also 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). A certificate of appealability 1s only proper 10 || when the petitioner makes “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right,” 11 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), meaning that “jurists of reason could disagree with the district 12 ||court’s resolution of his constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues 13 || presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Buck v. Davis, 137 14 Ct. 759, 773 (2017). 15 Coset’s claims are all waived, unexhausted, or noncognizable. No reasonable jurist 16 ||could argue otherwise. See Buck, 137 S. Ct. at 773. So Coset is not entitled to a certificate 17 || of appealability. 18 CONCLUSION 19 The Court recommends the following orders: 20 1. Coset’s habeas petition is DENIED. 21 2. Acertificate of appealability is DENIED. 22 The parties have 14 days from service of this report to file any objections to it. 23 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The party receiving an objection has 14 days to file any 24 response. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). 25 || Dated: May 24, 2022 26 — | 17 Hon. ndrew G. Schopler United States Magistrate Judge 28