ANTHONY L. TAYLOR, Plaintiff,
TERRI GONZALEZ, Warden, Respondent.
WILLIAM Q. HAYES, District Judge.
The matter before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 19) issued by the Honorable Magistrate Judge Ruben B. Brooks recommending that the Court deny Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (ECF No. 1).
I. State Proceedings
On May 1, 2008, in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, Anthony L. Taylor ("Petitioner") pled guilty to one count of attempted murder and admitted to two felony convictions. (Lodgment 12 at 10-12). On September 15, 2008, Petitioner filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea, stating that he had been under stress, had taken an incorrect dose of medication, and had not adequately conferred with his attorney prior to entering his guilty plea. (Lodgment 1 at 36-37). On September 29, 2008, the court denied Petitioner's motion to withdraw his plea, and sentenced Petitioner to a prison term of 24 years. (Lodgment 12). On October 27, 2008, Petitioner filed a notice of appeal (Lodgment 1 at 118) and a petition for writ of habeas corpus (Lodgement 5) in the California Court of Appeal. After consolidating the appeal with the petition (Lodgment 6), the California Court of Appeal denied Petitioner relief on December 29, 2009. (Lodgment 7).
On February 2, 2010, Petitioner filed a habeas petition in the California Supreme Court. (Lodgment 10). On April 14, 2010, the California Supreme Court denied the petition without comment. (Lodgment 11).
II. Federal Proceedings
On May 19, 2011, Petitioner filed the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus ("Petition") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in this Court. (ECF No. 1). In claim one, Petitioner alleges that his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights were violated because (1) he negotiated a plea agreement to receive a twenty-year prison sentence, and (2) the trial court denied his motion to withdraw his plea and improperly sentenced him to a prison term of twenty four years. In claim two, Petitioner alleges that his Sixth Amendment rights were violated when his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel by misadvising him on the length of his sentence during plea negotiations.
On October 31, 2011, Petitioner filed a Motion for Stay and Abeyance, requesting that the Court stay this action to permit him to file and exhaust a new claim in state court. (ECF No. 7). On August 23, 2012, the Court issued an Order denying the Motion for Stay and Abeyance. (ECF No. 16).
On June 4, 2013, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the Court deny the Petition in its entirety. The Magistrate Judge recommended denying claim one on the ground that Petitioner has failed to provide any objective evidence that he entered into a plea agreement to receive a prison term of exactly twenty years. The Magistrate Judge recommended denying claim two on the ground that Petitioner has failed to adequately demonstrate that his counsel's performance prejudiced his defense. (ECF No. 19). The Report and Recommendation concluded:
IT IS ORDERED that no later than July 5, 2013, any party to this action may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties...
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any reply to the objections shall be filed with the Court and served on all parties no later than July 19, 2013.
Id. at 31-32. To date, neither party has filed objections to the Report ...