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.

Hill v. Spearman

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit

May 15, 2013

MICHAEL DWIGHT HILL, Petitioner,
v.
M. SPEARMAN, Warden, Respondent.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

CHARLES F. EICK, Magistrate Judge.

This Report and Recommendation is submitted to the Honorable Percy Anderson, United States District Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 636 and General Order 05-07 of the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

PROCEEDINGS

Petitioner filed a "Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus By a Person in State Custody" on October 5, 2012, bearing a service date of September 27, 2012. The Petition contains two claims of alleged sentencing error:

1. The trial court allegedly violated Petitioner's constitutional rights to a jury trial, due process and equal protection by sentencing Petitioner based on facts found by a judge and not a jury, in asserted violation of the principles set forth in Cunningham v. California , 549 U.S. 270 (2007) ("Cunningham") (Ground One); and

2. The trial court allegedly erred by imposing four consecutive terms of 25 years to life, assertedly without proof that Petitioner had suffered two prior convictions qualifying as strikes under California's Three Strikes Law (Ground Two).

Respondent filed an Answer on March 4, 2013, asserting that the Petition is untimely and that both claims are procedurally defaulted. Petitioner filed a Reply on March 29, 2013.

BACKGROUND

In 2002, a jury found Petitioner guilty of two counts of forcible rape by fear, forcible sexual penetration, and assault by means likely to cause great bodily injury (Respondent's Lodgment 1; Respondent's Lodgment 19, pp. 11-12; see People v. Hill, 2003 WL 21197136, at *1 (Cal.App. May 22, 2003)). The jury found true the allegations that Petitioner personally inflicted great bodily injury within the meaning of California Penal Code section 12022.8 (Respondent's Lodgment 19, pp. 11-12; see People v. Hill, 2003 WL 21197136, at *1). The court found true the allegations that Petitioner had suffered two prior forcible rape convictions qualifying as strikes under California's Three Strikes Law, California Penal Code sections 667(b) - (i) and 1170.12(a) - (d) (Respondent's Lodgment 1; Respondent's Lodgment 19, p. 14).[1] Petitioner received a sentence of 110 years to life (Respondent's Lodgment 1; Respondent's Lodgment 19, pp. 14-15; see People v. Hill, 2003 WL 21197136, at *1).

The California Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment (People v. Hill, 2003 WL 21197136, at *3). On August 13, 2003, the California Supreme Court summarily denied Petitioner's petition for review (Respondent's Lodgment 3).

On June 24, 2004, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Blakely v. Washington , 542 U.S. 296 (2004) ("Blakely"). On February 1, 2006, Petitioner filed a habeas corpus petition in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, bearing a signature date of January 23, 2006, inter alia challenging Petitioner's sentence under Blakely (Respondent's Lodgment 4). The Superior Court denied the petition on February 2, 2006, stating that Petitioner's sentence was appropriate and that Blakely did not apply to Petitioner's circumstance (Respondent's Lodgment 4, first page; Respondent's Lodgment 19, p. 18).

On February 27, 2006, Petitioner filed a habeas corpus petition in the Court of Appeal, bearing a signature and service date of February 23, 2006 (Respondent's Lodgment 5). The Court of Appeal denied the petition on July 18, 2006, "without prejudice to any relief to which petitioner might be entitled after the United States Supreme Court determines in Cunningham v. California , No. 05-6551, the effect of Blakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. 296 and United States v. Booker (2005) 543 U.S. 200 [sic], [2] on California law" (Respondent's Lodgment 6).

According to the Superior Court docket, in approximately April of 2006, Petitioner filed in the Superior Court a habeas corpus petition which is not in the record (see Respondent's Lodgment 19, p. 18). The Superior Court denied this petition on April 24, 2006 (see Respondent's Lodgment 19, p. 18).

On January 22, 2007, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Cunningham. The Superior Court docket shows that in or about March, 2007, Petitioner filed another habeas corpus petition which is not in the record (see Respondent's Lodgment 19, p. 18). The Superior Court denied the petition on March 19, 2007, ruling, inter alia, that Blakely was not retroactive and did not apply to Petitioner's case (see Respondent's Lodgment 19, pp. 18-19).

On March 13, 2009, Petitioner filed another habeas corpus petition in the Superior Court (Respondent's Lodgment 7).[3] The Superior Court denied the petition on March 19, 2009, on the ground that the claimed Eighth Amendment violations should have been raised on direct review ...


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.