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.

Tyrrall Farrow Cannon v. Terri L. Gonzalez

March 30, 2011

TYRRALL FARROW CANNON, PETITIONER,
v.
TERRI L. GONZALEZ, WARDEN, RESPONDENT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: R. Gary Klausner United States District Judge

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DISMISSING SUCCESSIVE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

On February 28, 2011, Petitioner Tyrrall Farrow Cannon ("Petitioner"), a prisoner in state custody proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 ("Petition") in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. The Petition challenges Petitioner's 2003 state court conviction and sentence in San Bernardino County Superior Court Case No. FWV026177 (the "2003 judgment"). On March 22, 2011, the Petition was transferred to this Court.

Petitioner has filed numerous petitions in this Court challenging the 2003 judgment. For the reasons set forth below, the Petition must be dismissed as an unauthorized successive habeas petition.

PROCEEDINGS

On March 19, 2003, in Case No. FWV 026177, a San Bernardino County jury convicted Petitioner of inflicting corporal injury on a spouse and assault. The trial court found true that Petitioner had two prior "strike" convictions within the meaning of California's "Three Strikes Law." Petitioner was sentenced to a term of 25 years to life in prison. (Petition at 2; Report and Recommendation in Case No. EDCV 04-1287-CJC (CT), filed June 15, 2006 ("June 2006 R&R") at 2-3; Memorandum and Order Dismissing Successive Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in Case No. EDCV 10-0904-RGK (JEM), filed June 23, 2010 ("June 2010 M&O") at 1.)*fn1

Petitioner appealed the 2003 judgment, which was affirmed by the California Court of Appeal on June 16, 2004. (Petition at 3; June 2006 R&R at 3; June 2010 M&O at 2.)

Petitioner filed a petition for review in the California Supreme Court, which was denied on August 25, 2004. (Petition at 3; June 2006 R&R at 3; June 2010 M&O at 2.)

On August 18, 2003, July 21, 2004, and October 7, 2004, Petitioner filed three separate habeas petitions in the California Supreme Court, which were denied on May 12, 2004, June 8, 2005, and September 7, 2005, respectively. (June 2006 R&R at 3-4; June 2010 M&O at 2.)

On October 12, 2004, in Case No. EDCV 04-1287-CJC (CT), Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, attacking the 2003 judgment (the "2004 Federal Petition").

On June 15, 2006, the Magistrate Judge filed the June 2006 R&R recommending that the 2004 Federal Petition be denied on the merits and dismissed with prejudice. On July 7, 2006, the District Court issued an Order adopting the June 2006 R&R and entered Judgment denying the 2004 Federal Petition and dismissing it with prejudice.

On February 22, 2011, Petitioner filed the instant Petition, which also attacks the 2003 judgment.

DISCUSSION

I. Duty to Screen

This Court has a duty to screen habeas corpus petitions. See Rules Governing ยง 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, Rule 4 Advisory Committee Notes. Rule 4 requires a district court to examine a habeas corpus petition, and if it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any annexed exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief, the ...


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.