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.

Terrence Maurice Stamps v. Matthew Cate

July 30, 2012

TERRENCE MAURICE STAMPS,
PETITIONER,
v.
MATTHEW CATE, SECRETARY, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, RESPONDENT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. William McCurine, Jr. Magistrate Judge United States District Court

ORDER: (1) DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR STAY AND ABEYANCE; AND (2) DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME (ECF Nos. 6, 16)

I. INTRODUCTION

Terrence Maurice Stamps (hereinafter "Petitioner"), a state inmate proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus on September 2, 2011, and a Request for Stay and Abeyance on February 15, 2012.*fn1 [ECF Nos. 1 and 6.] Connie Gibson,*fn2 Warden at the Corcoran California State Prison (hereinafter "Respondent"), filed a Response in Opposition to Motion for Stay. [ECF No. 10.] Respondent asked the Court to deny Petitioner's stay request. [ECF No. 10.] Petitioner moved for an extension of time to file a reply to Respondent's opposition on May 17, 2012 and ultimately filed his reply on June 7, 2012. [ECF Nos. 16, 18.]

II. STATEMENT OF FACTS

Jury Trial

On December 19, 2008, a jury convicted Petitioner of first degree murder and found he discharged a firearm and caused great bodily harm or death. (Lodg. No. 1.) The trial court sentenced Petitioner to an indeterminate term of fifty years to life imprisonment. (Lodg. No. 1.) Direct Appeal

Petitioner filed a direct appeal to the California Court of Appeal, Fourth District. (Lodg. No. 3.) The California Court of Appeal denied the appeal on June 24, 2010. (Lodg. No. 4.) Petitioner then petitioned the California Supreme Court for review. (Lodg. No. 5.) Petitioner claimed the trial court failed to instruct the jury on imperfect self-defense. (Lodg. No. 5.) The California Supreme Court denied review on September 1, 2010. (Lodg. No. 6.)

Federal Habeas Corpus Petition

On September 2, 2011, Petitioner filed the habeas corpus petition now before this Court. [ECF No. 1.] The petition contains two claims. [ECF No. 1.] First, Petitioner presents the same failure to instruct claim he presented on direct review to the California Supreme Court. [ECF No. 1 at p. 6.] Second, Petitioner claims ineffective assistance of counsel because his trial counsel failed to request an instruction on imperfect self-defense.[ECF No. 1 at p. 9.]

On September 16, 2011, the Court dismissed the case without prejudice for Petitioner's failure to pay the filing fee and notified Petitioner that he filed a petition containing both exhausted and unexhausted claims because he did not allege exhaustion of the ineffective assistance of counsel claim. [ECF. No. 3 at p.5.]

Petitioner's Petition to the California Supreme Court

On December 19, 2011 Petitioner filed a habeas corpus petition at the California Supreme Court. (Lodg. No. 7.) Petitioner presented the same ineffective assistance of counsel claim found in his federal petition. (Lodg. No. 7.) On April 18, 2012, the California Supreme Court denied the petition without citation. [ECF No. 18 at p. 9.]

Petitioner's Request for Stay and Abeyance

On February 15, 2012, Petitioner filed a Request for Stay and Abeyance. [ECF No. 6.] In the request, Petitioner stated he intended to exhaust the second claim. [ECF No. 4 at 1.] Petitioner stated his appellate counsel failed to include the ineffective assistance of counsel claim on direct review. [ECF No. 6 at p. 1.] On ...


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.