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.

Derek K. Ancrum v. Gary Swarthout

January 25, 2013

DEREK K. ANCRUM,
PETITIONER,
v.
GARY SWARTHOUT, WARDEN, RESPONDENT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hayes, Judge:

ORDER

The matter before the Court is the review of the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 24) issued by United States Magistrate Judge Peter C. Lewis, recommending that this Court deny Petitioner Derek K. Ancrum's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1).

I. Background

In December 2007, a jury in San Diego County Superior Court found Petitioner guilty of five counts of second degree robbery and one count of attempted robbery. The jury found true the allegations that Petitioner personally used a firearm during the commission of two of the robberies. Petitioner admitted two prior strikes and serious felony convictions, and two prior prison terms. The state court sentenced Petitioner to an indeterminate term of 150 years to life, plus a determinate term of 28 years.

On October 29, 2009, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment of the trial court in an unpublished opinion. (Lodgment 6). On December 3, 2009, the California Supreme Court denied Petitioner's petition for review without comment. (Lodgment 8).

On September 13, 2010, the San Diego County Superior Court denied Petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus. (Lodgment 10). On November 4, 2010, the California Court of Appeal denied Petitioner's habeas petition. (Lodgment 12). On December 14, 2010, the California Supreme Court denied Petitioner's habeas petition. (Lodgment 14).

On November 7, 2011, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. (ECF No. 1). Petitioner alleges his federal constitutional rights were violated on four grounds:

(1) jury misconduct tainted the trial; (2) trial and appellate counsel were ineffective; (3) prosecutorial misconduct tainted the trial; (4) and Petitioner was actually innocent.

On November 17, 2011, the Petition was transferred to this Court. (ECF No. 5).

On March 23, 2012, Respondent filed an Answer to the Petition. (ECF No. 13).

The docket reflects that Petitioner did not file a traverse.

On December 18, 2012, the Magistrate Judge issued the Report and Recommendation, recommending that the Petition be denied in its entirety. (ECF No. 24). The Report and Recommendation concludes: "Any party may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties on or before January 4, 2013.... The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specific time may waive the right to appeal the district court's order." (ECF No. 24 at 18-19 (citation omitted)).

The docket reflects that neither party filed objections to the Report ...


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.