United States District Court, C.D. California
Silus Mardel Valson, Petitioner, Pro se, Represa, CA.
For People of the State of Calif., Respondent: Shira Seigle Markovich, CAAG - Office of the Attorney General, California Department of Justice, Los Angeles, CA.
DECISION AND ORDER
CARLA M. WOEHRLE, United States Magistrate Judge.
For the reasons stated below, the petition for habeas corpus relief is denied and this action is dismissed with prejudice as time-barred.
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Silus Mardel Valson (" Petitioner"), a pro se prisoner in state custody, challenges his conviction in California Superior Court, Los Angeles County, Case No. BA321123.
On April 3, 2009, Petitioner pled guilty to twelve counts of second degree robbery and two counts of attempted robbery, in violation of California Penal Code (" PC") sections 211 and 211/664, respectively. [Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (" Pet.") at 2; Supplemental Lodged Document (" Supp. Lodg.") 2 at 3-11.] In addition, Petitioner admitted that he personally used a firearm in the commission of each offense within the meaning of PC 12022.53(b). [Supp. Lodg. 2 at 11.] Petitioner was sentenced the same day to state prison for an aggregate term of nineteen years and four months. [Pet. at 2; Supp. Lodg. 2 at 14.] Petitioner did not appeal.
On February 21, 2013, Petitioner filed a motion in the Los Angeles Superior Court for modification of his sentence. [Lodged Document (" Lodg.") 3.] The superior court construed the motion as a request for recalculation of Petitioner's jail credit; so construed, the court denied the motion on the ground that Petitioner " waived two years and four months of presentence custody time at the time he was sentenced." [Supp. Lodg. 3.]
Petitioner filed a habeas petition in the Los Angeles Superior Court on June 6, 2013, in which he challenged the use of a firearm enhancement and the waiver of his presentence credits. [Lodg. 4.] The court denied the petition on June 17, 2013, in a reasoned order. [Pet., Ex. A; Lodg. 2 at 11.]
Petitioner constructively filed identical habeas petitions in the California Court of Appeal and Supreme Court, on June 28, and July 28, 2013, respectively. [Lodg. 5, 7.] On July 11, 2013, the court of appeal denied relief on the ground that " [P]etitioner has failed to allege sufficient facts to justify relief. ( In re Swain (1949) 34 Cal.2d 300, 304, 209 P.2d 793.)." [Pet. Ex. B; Lodg. 6.] The California Supreme Court summarily denied relief on October 23, 2013. [Pet., Ex. C.]
On November 27, 2013, Petitioner constructively filed the instant Petition, in which he alleges the same claims raised on state collateral review. [Docket no. 1.]. Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss the Petition (" MTD") and lodged supporting documents on March 6, 2014, on the grounds that the Petition failed to name a proper Respondent, is unexhausted, and untimely. [Docket No. 12.] On April 7, 2014, Petitioner filed opposition to the motion to dismiss (" Opp. MTD") and lodged a First Amended Petition (" FAP"), substituting Jeffrey Beard, Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (" CDCR"), as Respondent. [Docket nos. 18, 20.] In an order filed on April 22, 2014, the court ordered the FAP filed, denied Respondent's motion to dismiss as moot insofar as the motion was based on failure to name a proper Respondent, and ordered Respondent to lodge additional documents. [Docket no. 19.] On May 2, 2014, Petitioner filed a document entitled " Initial Disclosure, " which the court has construed as a supplement to the First Amended Petition. [Docket no. 21.] Respondent lodged supplemental documents, pursuant to the court's April 22, 2014 order, on June 6, 2014. [Docket no. 24.] Both Petitioner and Respondent have consented to proceed before the Magistrate Judge. [Docket nos. 2, 14.]
An application for federal habeas corpus relief on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to a state court judgment, filed after enactment of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (" AEDPA") on April 24, 1996, is subject to the one-year statute of limitation codified at 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). See Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167, 176, 121 S.Ct. 2120, 150 L.Ed.2d 251 (2001); Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 326-27, 117 S.Ct. 2059, 138 L.Ed.2d 481 (1997); Wixom v. Washington, 264 F.3d 894, 895 (9th Cir. 2001). For petitioners whose convictions became final after AEDPA was enacted, the one-year limitation period runs beginning on the latest of four alternative dates:
(A) the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the ...