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.

Tinson v. Muniz

United States District Court, C.D. California

February 20, 2015

RONALD TINSON, Petitioner,
v.
W. MUNIZ, Warden, Respondent.

ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING PETITION FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION AND DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

JOSEPHINE L. STATON, District Judge.

On January 21, 2015, Ronald Tinson ("Petitioner"), a California state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus ("Petition"). (Docket No. 1.)

PRIOR PROCEEDINGS

In an amended information filed by the District Attorney of Los Angeles County, Petitioner was charged with first degree burglary (Cal. Penal Code § 459; count 1), attempted first degree burglary (Cal. Penal Code §§ 664, 459; count 2), and evading an officer in a wantonly unsafe manner (Cal. Veh. Code § 2800.2; count 3). It was alleged that the crimes were committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang, within the meaning of section 186.22(b)(1)(B). Moreover, the amended information set forth prior prison term and prior conviction allegations within the meaning of Cal. Penal Code §§ 1170.12(a)-(d), 667(b)-(i), 667.5(b) and 667(a)(1). Petitioner pleaded not guilty and denied the special allegations. (Petition at 1-2, 9-10;[1] Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge ("R&R"), filed on October 29, 2013, Tinson v. Grounds, Warden, Case No. CV 13-0968 ABC (JEM), at 2).[2]

Following a jury trial and a bifurcated trial before the court on the priors allegations in Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case No. VA110174, Petitioner was found guilty as charged and special allegations were found true. Petitioner was sentenced under the California's Three Strikes law to state prison for three consecutive terms amounting to a total of 95 years to life. (Petition at 2, 10; R&R at 2).

On October 16, 2012, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus by a person in state custody, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2254, in this Court, Tinson v. Grounds, Warden, Case No. CV 12-8896 ABC (JEM) ("October 2012 Petition"). On January 10, 2013, Petitioner voluntarily withdrew the October 2012 Petition. (Tinson v. Grounds, Warden, Case No. CV 12-8896 ABC (JEM) Docket No. 9.)

On February 11, 2013, Petitioner filed another petition for writ of habeas corpus by a person in state custody, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, in this Court, Tinson v. Grounds, Warden, Case No. CV 13-0968 ABC (JEM) ("February 2013 Petition"), challenging his conviction and/or sentence in Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. VA110174. (R&R at 1-2). Respondent filed an Answer to the February 2013 Petition on May 14, 2013. Petitioner filed a Reply on August 19, 2013. On October 29, 2013, the Magistrate Judge issued his R&R, recommending that the February 2013 Petition be dismissed with prejudice on the merits. (R&R at 1-21). The District Court accepted the R&R and dismissed the February 2013 Petition on January 10, 2014. (See Judgment, Tinson v. Grounds, Warden, Case No. CV 13-0968 ABC (JEM)).

On January 21, 2015, Petitioner filed the instant Petition. In the Petition, Petitioner challenges his conviction and/or sentence in Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. VA110174. (See Petition at 1-2, 9-10).

DISCUSSION

The present Petition is governed by the provisions of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA"). AEDPA amended 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) to read, in pertinent part, as follows:

(b)(1) A claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus application under section 2254 that was presented in a prior application shall be dismissed.
(2) A claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus application under section 2254 that was not presented in a prior application shall be dismissed unless -
(A) the applicant shows that the claim relies on a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable; or
(B)(i) the factual predicate for the claim could not have been discovered previously through the exercise of due diligence; and [¶] (ii) the facts underlying the claim, if proven and viewed in light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no ...

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.