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.

Holmes v. Frauenheim

United States District Court, C.D. California

May 8, 2015

STANLEY EUGENE HOLMES, Petitioner,
v.
S. FRAUENHEIM, Warden, Respondent.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

SUZANNE H. SEGAL, Magistrate Judge.

This Report and Recommendation is submitted to the Honorable George H. King, Chief 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.

I.

INTRODUCTION

On September 25, 2014, Stanley Eugene Holmes ("Petitioner") filed a "Memorandum of Points and Authorities to Treat Petition as a Writ of Mandate" ("Petition"), which seeks to have Petitioner's criminal sentence modified pursuant to recently enacted state law.[1] (Dkt. No. 2). The Court liberally construed the pending Petition as a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, see Brown v. Vasquez, 952 F.2d 1164, 1166 n.7 (9th Cir. 1992) ("[F]ederal courts have a responsibility to construe liberally pro se prisoners' vaguely-framed pleadings as habeas petitions where the interests of justice demand[.]"), and required Respondent to answer the Petition. (Dkt. No. 4).

On February 4, 2015, Respondent filed an Answer to the Petition with an accompanying Memorandum of Points and Authorities ("Ans. Mem."), and also lodged ten documents. (Dkt. Nos. 15-16). Petitioner filed a Reply on February 27, 2015. (Dkt. No. 20). For the reasons discussed below, it is recommended that the Petition be DENIED and that this action be DISMISSED with prejudice.

II.

PRIOR PROCEEDINGS

On March 1, 2000, an Orange County Superior Court jury found Petitioner guilty of one count of possession of a firearm by a felon in violation of California Penal Code ("P.C.") § 12021(a)(1), and one count of evading a police officer while driving in willful or wanton disregard for safety in violation of California Vehicle Code § 2800.2. (Lodgment 2 at 16; Lodgment 3 at 1). The trial court also found it to be true that Petitioner had numerous prior convictions under California's Three Strikes Law, P.C. §§ 667(b)-(i) and 1170.12(a)-(d). (Lodgment 2 at 17-19). On April 21, 2000, the trial court sentenced Petitioner to two concurrent terms of twenty-five years to life in state prison. (Lodgment 2 at 21). Petitioner appealed his convictions and sentence to the California Court of Appeal, which affirmed the judgment on November 9, 2011. (Lodgment 3). The California Supreme Court denied direct review without comment on January 23, 2002. (Lodgment 4).

On December 5, 2002, Petitioner filed a habeas petition in Orange County Superior Court, which denied the petition on December 24, 2002.[2] On January 23, 2003, the California Court of Appeal denied an identical petition. Petitioner next filed a habeas petition in the California Supreme Court, which denied the petition without comment or citation to authority on October 15, 2003.

On October 23, 2003, Petitioner filed the Prior Petition in this Court. On June 17, 2005, the Court denied Petitioner's claims and dismissed the Prior Petition with prejudice. (Lodgment 5).

On April 9, 2013, in Orange County Superior Court, Petitioner filed an application for recall and resentencing pursuant to California's Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 ("the Act"), which the trial court denied on April 11, 2013. (Dkt. No. 1 at 1; Lodgment 2 at 23).

On April 30, 2013, Petitioner, represented by the Orange County Public Defender, filed a petition to recall sentence and for a new sentencing hearing in Orange County Superior Court. (Dkt. No. 1 at 28; Lodgment 2 at 23). However, at a hearing on July 12, 2013, Petitioner's counsel moved to take the petition off calendar. (Lodgment 2 at 25). The Superior Court interpreted the motion as a request to withdraw the petition and thereafter ordered the petition withdrawn. (Id.).

On April 10, 2014, Petitioner, now proceeding pro se, filed an "Ex Parte Motion" in the California Court of Appeal, which the California Court of Appeal construed as a writ of ...


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.