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.

Rickie A. Biddle v. William Knipp

December 11, 2012

RICKIE A. BIDDLE, PETITIONER,
v.
WILLIAM KNIPP, RESPONDENT.



FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

I. INTRODUCTION

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with an application for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner pleaded guilty to one count of residential robbery, one count of residential burglary, three counts of assault with force likely to cause great bodily injury, two counts of criminal threats, two counts of assault with a semi-automatic firearm, one count of false imprisonment by violence, one count of receiving stolen property, one count of possession of a firearm by a felon, and one count of carrying a loaded firearm with the intent to commit a felony. Petitioner received a sentence of twenty-seven years and four months imprisonment. Presently before the court is petitioner's motion to stay and abey his federal habeas petition. For the following reasons, the motion to stay and abey should be denied.

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND*fn1

On the evening of October 1, 2007, defendant and several cohorts invaded a home to rob the occupants. Defendant wielded a semiautomatic pistol, and pistol-whipped or kicked some victims, and made threats. The perpetrators were soon captured, in possession of property taken from the home. It appears the home was targeted because its occupants were marijuana growers. Video taken by a surveillance camera at the home that night shows co-defendant Jack Baldwin cutting down "fully bushed" marijuana plants on the property. (Resp't's Lodged Doc. 8 at p. 2-3.)

III. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Petitioner appealed to the California Court of Appeal after he was convicted and sentenced. (See Resp't's Lodged Doc. 5.) On November 23, 2010, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in a written opinion. (See Resp't's Lodged Doc. 8.) Thereafter, petitioner filed a petition for review in the California Supreme Court. (See Resp't's Lodged Doc. 9.) The California Supreme Court summarily denied the petition for review on February 2, 2011. (See Resp't's Lodged Doc. 10.)

On April 20, 2011, petitioner filed a state habeas petition in the Shasta County Superior Court. (See Resp't's Lodged Doc. 11.) On June 6, 2011, the Shasta County Superior Court denied the state habeas petition in a written decision. (See Resp't's Lodged Doc. 12.)

Petitioner filed his federal habeas petition on April 20, 2012.*fn1 Petitioner raises the following claims in his federal habeas petition:

I. The trial court abused its discretion when it ruled there had been no change of circumstances under a local rule prohibiting plea agreements after the jury trial readiness conference absent a change of circumstances, thereby rendering [petitioner's] pleas of guilty involuntary and denying him his right to effective assistance of counsel and due process under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 15 of the California Constitution. Moreover, the trial court further abused its discretion and denied [petitioner] those state and federal constitutional rights when it denied [petitioner's] subsequent motion to withdraw his guilty pleas in the face of clear and convincing evidence of grounds to do so.

II. The case must be remanded to allow [petitioner] an opportunity to withdraw his pleas because he was denied the benefit of his plea bargain as well as federal and state due process of law.

III. By failing to object to the prosecutor's silence during argument on sentence, trial counsel rendered [petitioner] ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of his rights to counsel under the Sixth and Fourteen Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 15 of the California Constitution.

IV. The trial court committed prejudicial error when it cut [petitioner] off in mid-sentence during a hearing held pursuant to People v. Marsden, supra, thereby precluding [petitioner] from fully articulating his reasons why he sought to discharge his attorney and potentially denying him his right to effective assistance of counsel under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 15 of the California Constitution. (Dkt. No. 1.)

On June 20, 2012, petitioner filed another state habeas petition in the Shasta County Superior Court. That petition raised four claims; specifically:

I. Imposition of the one year sentence for count 3 violated Penal Code ยง 654, and liberty interest rights protected by ...


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.