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.

Turner v. State

United States District Court, S.D. California

July 21, 2016

ERNEST LEE TURNER, Petitioner,
v.
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Respondent.

         ORDER (1) DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (“PETITION”) WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE EXTENT IT CHALLENGES THE STATE JUDGMENT; AND (2) TRANSFERRING PETITION TO SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA TO THE EXTENT IT CHALLENGES THE EXECUTION OF PETITIONER’S SENTENCE/THE DENIAL OF PAROLE

          HONORABLE STEPHEN V. WILSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         I. SUMMARY

         On July 12, 2016, petitioner Ernest Lee Turner (“petitioner”), who is in custody at the Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility (“RJD”) in San Diego, California, in the Southern District of California (28 U.S.C. § 84(d)), and is proceeding pro se, formally filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Current Federal Petition”). The Current Federal Petition purports to challenge petitioner’s 2005 conviction in Riverside County Superior Court in Case No. RIF111528 (“State Case”), but petitioner’s only claim for relief is that he should be released because he has served almost fourteen (14) years without any infractions and has been rehabilitated. (Current Federal Petition at 2, 3).

         For the reasons discussed below: (1) to the extent the Current Federal Petition challenges the judgment in the State Case, the Court dismisses it without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction because petitioner did not obtain the requisite authorization from the Court of Appeals to file a successive petition; and (2) to the extent the Current Federal Petition challenges the execution of petitioner’s sentence/the denial of parole, the Court transfers it to the Southern District of California.

         II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY[1]

         A. State Court Proceedings in State Case

         On November 23, 2004, a Riverside County Superior Court jury found petitioner guilty of three counts of second degree robbery and found true allegations that petitioner had personally used a deadly and dangerous weapon in the commission of each such robbery. On November 24, 2004, in a bifurcated proceeding held after petitioner waived his right to a jury trial on prior conviction allegations, the court found such prior conviction allegations to be true. On January 10, 2005, the court sentenced petitioner to a total of 90 years to life in prison.

         On November 14, 2005, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in the State Case. Petitioner did not further pursue a direct appeal. Petitioner subsequently sought, and was denied, habeas relief in the Riverside County Superior Court, the California Court of Appeal, and the California Supreme Court.

         B. First Federal Action, Ninth Circuit Action, and U.S. Supreme Court Action

         On January 10, 2014, petitioner filed the First Federal Petition challenging the judgment in the State Case on multiple grounds. On October 19, 2011, this Court denied the First Federal Petition on its merits and dismissed the First Federal Action with prejudice. On October 21, 2011, judgment was entered accordingly.

         On January 18, 2013, the Ninth Circuit issued an order denying petitioner’s request for a certificate of appealability in the Ninth Circuit Action.

         On October 7, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court denied petitioner’s petition for a writ of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court Action.

         C. Current Federal Petition

         As noted above, on July 12, 2016, petitioner filed the Current Federal Petition which purports to again challenge the judgment in the State Case. The record does not reflect that petitioner has obtained authorization from the Ninth ...


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.