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.

Martinez v. McDonald

January 10, 2010

JESS RICO MARTINEZ, PETITIONER,
v.
MIKE MCDONALD, WARDEN RESPONDENT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sandra M. Snyder United States Magistrate Judge

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS [Doc. 1]

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

BACKGROUND

Following a jury trial in the California Superior Court for the County of Tulare, Petitioner was convicted of five counts of violation of California Penal Code*fn1 section 211, second-degree robbery; five counts of violation of section 210.5, false imprisonment of a hostage; two counts of violation of section 236, false imprisonment; and one count of violation of section 459, commercial burglary. It was further found true that Petitioner had previously been convicted of five prior serious or violent felonies within the meaning of the California three strikes law and section 667(a). Petitioner was sentenced to 50 years to life.

Petitioner filed a timely notice of appeal to the California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District. On February 20, 2008, the judgment and conviction was affirmed. (Lodged Doc. B.)

On April 1, 2008, Petitioner field a petition for review in the California Supreme Court, which was denied on May 14, 2008. (Lodged Doc. C.)

Petitioner filed the instant federal petition for writ of habeas corpus on April 27, 2009. (Court Doc. 1.) Respondent filed an answer to the petition on November 9, 2009. (Court Doc. 27.) Petitioner did not file a traverse.

STATEMENT OF FACTS*fn2

[Petitioner's] attempt to rob a bank in Exeter resulted in an 11-hour standoff with police, during which [Petitioner] held hostages inside the bank. The standoff ended when a SWAT team rushed inside the bank and apprehended [Petitioner].

DISCUSSION

A. Jurisdiction

Relief by way of a petition for writ of habeas corpus extends to a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a state court if the custody is in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3); Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 375, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 1504, n.7 (2000). Petitioner asserts that he suffered violations of his rights as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. The challenged conviction arises out of the Tulare County Superior Court, which is located within the jurisdiction of this Court.

28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); 2241(d).

On April 24, 1996, Congress enacted the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA"), which applies to all petitions for writ of habeas corpus filed after its enactment. Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 117 S.Ct. 2059, 2063 (1997; Jeffries v. Wood, 114 F.3d 1484, 1499 (9th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1008, 118 S.Ct. 586 (1997) (quoting Drinkard v. Johnson, 97 F.3d 751, 769 (5th Cir.1996), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1107, 117 S.Ct. 1114 (1997), overruled on other grounds by Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 117 S.Ct. 2059 (1997) (holding AEDPA only applicable to ...


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.