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.

Martinez v. K. Holland

United States District Court, S.D. California

December 2, 2014

EDGAR MARTINEZ, Petitioner,
v.
K. HOLLAND, Warden, Respondent.

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION DENYING PETITIONER'S FIRST AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY (ECF No. 9.)

GONZALO P. CURIEL, District Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

Petitioner Edgar Martinez ("Petitioner"), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a First Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus ("FAP") under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (ECF No. 9.) On March 20, 2014, Respondent filed an answer to the FAP. (ECF No. 10.) On April 14, 2014, Petitioner filed his Traverse. (ECF No. 13.) On May 12, 2014, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Honorable William V. Gallo, United States Magistrate Judge ("Magistrate Judge"), issued a report and recommendation ("R&R") recommending that this Court deny Petitioner's FAP. (ECF No. 14.) On June 20, 2014, Petitioner filed Objections to the R&R. (ECF No. 15.) After a thorough review of the issues and for the reasons set forth below, this Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's R&R and DENIES Petitioner's FAP.

II. BACKGROUND

On March 24, 2011, following a jury trial, Petitioner was convicted in San Diego County Superior Court Case number SCD228494 of robbery, assault with a firearm, making a criminal threat, burglary, and grand theft of a firearm. (ECF No. 11-2, Lodgment No. 1 at 130-34.) As to the commission of each count, the jury found that Petitioner personally used a firearm in violation of California Penal Code section 12022.5(a) or section 12022.53(b). (Id.) On September 9, 2011, Petitioner was sentenced to a total prison term of fifteen years, reflecting the upper term of five years on the robbery count and a term of ten years for the gun use enhancement on that count. (Id. at 137). Concurrent terms were imposed on the remaining counts and on the gun use enhancements. (Id.)

On January 17, 2012, Petitioner's appellate counsel filed a direct appeal in the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, challenging the admission of a witness's statement to police, a claim not presented here. (ECF No. 11-10, Lodgment No. 3.) On May 21, 2012, Petitioner filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in the same California Court of Appeal, claiming ineffective assistance of trial counsel during the plea bargaining and sentencing stages, and a judicial sentencing error in violation of his right to a jury trial. (ECF No. 12-1, Lodgment No. 9 at 4-9.) On May 30, 2012, the Court of Appeal issued an order indicating that the direct appeal and the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus would be considered together. (ECF No. 12-4, Lodgment 11 at 32.) On July 11, 2012, the California Court of Appeal issued two separate opinions. In the first opinion, the Court of Appeal affirmed as to Petitioner's evidentiary claim not presented here. (ECF No. 11-13, Lodgment No. 6.) In the second opinion, the Court of Appeal denied habeas relief with regard to Petitioner's ineffective assistance of counsel and judicial sentencing error claims. (ECF No. 12-2, Lodgment No. 10.)

On August 13, 2012, Petitioner, with counsel, filed a Petition for Review in the California Supreme Court on the basis of the evidentiary claim not presented here. (ECF No. 11-14, Lodgment No. 7.) The California Supreme Court denied the Petition for Review on September 19, 2012. (ECF No. 11-15, Lodgment No. 8.)

On September 3, 2013, Petitioner filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in the California Supreme Court, raising the claims presented here. (ECF No. 12-4, Lodgment No. 11.) On November 20, 2013, the California Supreme Court summarily denied the habeas petition without a statement of reason or citation to authority. (ECF No. 12-3, Lodgment No. 12.)

On December 13, 2013, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus ("Petition") in this Court. (ECF No. 1.) On February 3, 2014, Petitioner filed a First Amended Petition ("FAP"). (ECF No. 9.) In his FAP, Petitioner alleges the same claims raised in his original Petition: (1) ineffective assistance of counsel during the plea bargaining proceedings, and (2) a judicial sentencing error and ineffective assistance of counsel in relation to the sentencing. (Id. at 5.) On March 20, 2014, Respondent filed a response to the FAP. (ECF No. 10.) On April 11, 2014, Petitioner filed a Traverse. (ECF No. 13.) On May 12, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued an R&R, recommending that the FAP be denied. (ECF No. 14.) On June 18, 2014, Petitioner filed Objections. (ECF No. 15.)

III. LEGAL STANDARD

In reviewing a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, a district court "must make a de novo determination of those portions of the report... to which objection is made" and "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b).

IV. DISCUSSION

Petitioner raises two general claims in his FAP, each alleging a violation of his rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. First, Petitioner claims ineffective assistance of trial counsel during the plea bargaining proceedings. (ECF No. 9 at 5, 8-13.) Second, Petitioner claims a judicial sentencing error in violation of his right to a jury trial, ineffective assistance of trial counsel in connection with his sentencing, and ineffective assistance of appellate counsel in connection with his sentencing. (ECF No. 9 at 5, 14-20).

A. Scope of Review

28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) provides:

The Supreme Court, a Justice thereof, a circuit judge, or a district court shall entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.

28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act ("AEDPA"), as amended, states:

(d) An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings unless the adjudication of the claim-
(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or
(2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable interpretation of the facts in light of the evidence ...

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.