United States District Court, Central District of California, Eastern Division
Paul Murray Ayedelott, Petitioner, Pro se, Tehachapi, CA.
For RTC Grounds, Respondent: Angela M Borzachillo, CAAG - Office of Attorney General, California Department of Justice, San Diego, CA.
AMENDED REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
STEPHEN J. HILLMAN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
This Amended Report and Recommendation is submitted to the Honorable R. Gary Klausner, United States District Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and General Order 05-07 of the United States District Court for the Central District of California. For the reasons stated below, the First Amended Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus should be denied and this action should be dismissed.
Petitioner, a prisoner in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, challenges his 2012 conviction and sentence in California Superior Court, Riverside County (Case No. SWF121526), see respondent's Notice of Lodgment [" Lodgment" ] Nos. 1-5.
On July 21, 2014, petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody (" Petition") herein. Pursuant to the Court's July 22, 2014 Minute Order, petitioner filed a First Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody (" First Amended Petition") on August 4, 2014. As best the Court can glean from petitioner's allegations, the First Amended Petition alleges the following claims: (1) Petitioner was given wrong legal advice by the arresting officer concerning the admissibility of a polygraph; and (2) Petitioner suffered a prior serious or violent felony conviction for threatening to poke someone with a needle stating that he had HIV or AID, which he does not have. (See First Amended Petition at 5-6).
Respondent filed an Answer to the First Amended Petition on September 2, 2014. Respondent then filed a Return and Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Petition (" Motion to Dismiss") on September 10, 2014. In the Motion to Dismiss, respondent contends that the First Amended Petition should be dismissed because it is barred by the one-year statute of limitations. (See Motion to Dismiss at 2-7). Respondent alternatively contends that the First Amended Petition should be dismissed because the claims alleged in the First Amended Petition are not cognizable on federal habeas review. (See Motion to Dismiss at 7-9).
Petitioner did not file an Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss, or request an extension of time to do so.
Thus, this matter now is ready for decision.
II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In a Felony Complaint issued in the Riverside County Superior Court on June 11, 2012, petitioner was charged with one count of possession of a controlled substance (methamphetamine), with the special allegations that petitioner suffered two prior serious or violent felony convictions and one prior serious felony conviction. (See Lodgment No. 2). On June 11, 2012, petitioner plead guilty to the charge and admitted one prior serious or violent felony conviction allegation. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the trial court sentenced him to a total prison term of 5 years, and dismissed the second prior serious or violent felony conviction allegation. (See Lodgment Nos. 2 through 5).
Petitioner did not appeal his conviction to the California Court of Appeal.
On January 8, 2014, petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus with the Riverside County Superior Court. (See Lodgment No. 6). On January 14, 2014, the Superior Court denied that habeas petition, stating: " The petition is denied because the petition fails to state a prima facie factual case supporting the petitioner's release. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.551(c).) The petition makes assertions ...