Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Walters v. Sisto

December 29, 2008

MARTIN EDWARD WALTERS, PETITIONER,
v.
D.K. SISTO, WARDEN, RESPONDENT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Dana M. Sabraw United States District Judge

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND DENYING PETITIONERS' PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

Martin Edward Walters ("Petitioner") is a California prisoner proceeding pro se, who fileda Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He challenges his conviction for first degree murder. Magistrate Judge Nita L. Stormes issued a Report and Recommendation that the petition be denied. ("R&R," Doc. 17). Petitioner filed objections.*fn1 (Doc. 19.) Respondent did not file a Reply. The Court now adopts the R&R and denies the Petition.

I. BACKGROUND

The full factual and procedural history has been comprehensively set forth in the R&R, which this Court adopts. Of particular relevance to Petitioner's claim are the following undisputed facts. On May 9, 1990, Petitioner pled guilty to first degree murder. (R&R at 2.) Petitioner sought to withdraw his guilty plea, asserting mutual mistake of fact. He argued that he mistakenly pled guilty to the state charge as part of a package plea deal involving federal charges, because he was told that he faced life without parole for the federal crimes.*fn2 (Id.) On January 10, 1991, the state trial court denied his motion and sentenced Petitioner to a term of "25 years to life." (R&R at 2.) Petitioner filed the instant petition on January 28, 2008. (Doc. 1.)

II. DISCUSSION

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his conviction for first degree murder. Petitioner challenges his confinement on four grounds: "(1) Petitioner's guilty pleas were obtained in violation of his due process or equal protection rights; (2) the statute under which Petitioner was convicted or sentenced was unconstitutionally vague in violation of his due process or equal protection rights; (3) California enacted a new law that increased Petitioner's punishment, in violation of the ex post facto or equal protection clauses of the Constitution; and (4) California's "penal consequence parole" directly conflicts with clearly established United States Supreme Court law, in violation of Petitioner's due process rights." (R&R at 1.) Respondent asserts Petitioner's claim is barred by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996's (AEDPA's) one-year statute of limitations. Magistrate Judge Stormes agreed with Respondent, and recommended that the Court grant Respondent's motion to dismiss. Petitioner objects to the Magistrate Judge's R&R, claiming that his petition was timely filed, and entitled to statutory and equitable tolling.

A. Standard of Review

This Court's role in reviewing an R&R is set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Under this statute, the district court "shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report... to which objection is made," and "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate." Id. In this case, Petitioner filed objections to the R&R. Accordingly, this Court will make de novo determinations of those portions of the R&R to which objection is made.

B. Statute of Limitations

AEDPA sets out a one-year period of limitation for state habeas corpus petitions. See 28 U.S.C.A. § 2244(d)(1). It provides:

The limitation period shall run from the latest of--

(A) the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review;

(B) the date on which the impediment to filing an application created by State action in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States is removed, if the applicant was prevented from filing by such State action;

(C) the date on which the constitutional right asserted was initially recognized by the Supreme Court, if the right has been newly recognized by the Supreme Court and made ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.