Whether petitioner's claim that the court's abrupt and arbitrary rejection of his plea agreement deprived him of due process is cognizable in habeas

QUESTION PRESENTED During a colloquy on a plea agreement to a 24-year sentence, petitioner said that he did not understand all of the rights and consequences of the plea read to him by an interpreter. The trial court responded, “Good,” tore up petitioner’s plea waiver form, instructed the prosecutor to call her first witness, and declared that “All deals are off the table.” Petitioner was tried, convicted, and sentenced to 130 years to life in state prison. Is petitioner’s claim that the court’s abrupt and arbitrary rejection of his plea agreement deprived him of due process cognizable in habeas, or does it “fail[] to present a constitutional issue cognizable for habeas review,” as the Ninth Circuit held in denying relief? i PARTIES AND LIST OF PRIOR PROCEEDINGS The parties to this proceeding are Petitioner Arturo Beltran and Respondent Craig Koenig, Warden. The California Attorney General represents Respondent. On August 25, 2010, Beltran was convicted by jury in Los Angeles County Superior Court in People v. Beltran, case no. KA088180, Judge Mike Camacho, presiding, of sexual assault against his minor daughters. 2 clerk’s transcript of trial “CT”), docket 52, lodgment 16 at 248-296.1 On December 18, 2010, Judge Camacho sentenced Beltran to 130 years to life in state prison. 2 CT 298. Judge Bruce F. Marrs made the pre-trial ruling that is the subject of this petition. Petitioner’s