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.

Dennis L. Hamilton v. F. Gonzalez

March 22, 2011

DENNIS L. HAMILTON,
PETITIONER,
v.
F. GONZALEZ, RESPONDENT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dennis L. Beck United States Magistrate Judge

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

[Doc. 18]

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

BACKGROUND

Petitioner is lawfully in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) following his 1997 conviction for kidnapping to commit robbery and assault with a deadly weapon.

In the instant petition, Petitioner challenges the California Board of Parole Hearings' 2009 decision to deny parole. Petitioner specifically alleges that the terms of his plea agreement were violated by enforcement of Proposition 9, and Proposition 9 violated his ex post facto rights.

Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the San Mateo County Superior Court. (Ex. 1, to Answer.) The petition was denied on April 16, 2009.

Petitioner filed a petitions for writ of habeas corpus in the California Court of Appeal and California Supreme Court. Both petitions were summarily denied.

Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus on September 7, 2010. Respondent filed an answer to the petition on February 9, 2011, and Petitioner filed a traverse on March 17, 2011.

DISCUSSION

I. Standard of Review

Where a petitioner files his federal habeas petition after the effective date of the Anti- Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act ("AEDPA"), he can prevail only if he can show that the state court's adjudication of his claim:

(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or

(2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence ...


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.