UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
April 26, 2012
MATTHEW CATE, RESPONDENT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Irma E. Gonzalez, Chief Judge United States District Court
Order Adopting in Full Report and Recommendation; Denying Petition; Denying Certificate of Appealability
Petitioner Leonardo Garcia has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his sentence in San Diego County Superior Court Case No. SDC206983. Petitioner argues the Superior Court used a prior Juvenile adjudication as a strike to enhance his sentence, in violation of his right to due process. Respondent filed an answer, arguing the state court's decision denying Petitioner's claim was neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of clearly established Federal law.
Magistrate Judge Ruben Brooks issued a Report and Recommendation on February 28, 2012, recommending the Court deny the petition. The Court is required to review de novo those portions of a report and recommendation to which objection are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) ("[T]he district judge must review the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise."). Here, Petitioner did not file objections to the report and recommendation.
Magistrate Judge Brooks' report and recommendation is based upon the correct legal standard, and fully and completely discusses the reasons why Petitioner is not entitled to relief on his claim. In short, the Ninth Circuit has held that there is no clearly established Federal law prohibiting state courts from using juvenile adjudications to enhance the sentence of an adult offender. Boyd v. Newland, 467 F.3d 1139, 1152 (9th Cir. 2006). Therefore, the Court ADOPTS IN FULL the Report and Recommendation and DENIES the petition for writ of habeas corpus.
Pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 cases, the "district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant." A certificate of appealability is authorized "if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C.A. § 2253(c)(2) (West Supp. 2001). When a petitioner's claims have been denied on their merits, as here, a petitioner can meet the threshold "substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right," by demonstrating that: (1) the issues are debatable among jurists of reason; or (2) that a court could resolve the issues in a different manner; or (3) that the questions are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further. Lambright v. Stewart, 220 F.3d 1022, 1024-25 (9th Cir. 2000), citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000), and Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880 (1983). The Ninth Circuit in Boyd resolved the sole issue in the petition, and the Court does not believe "jurists of reason" would disagree on Petitioner's entitlement to relief. Therefore, the Court DENIES a certificate of appealability.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.