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.

Mace v. Montgomery

United States District Court, S.D. California

April 17, 2017

WILLIAM T. MACE, Petitioner,
v.
W.L. MONTGOMERY, Warden, Respondent.

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION RE RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS [DOC. NO. 11]

          HON. KAREN S. CRAWFORD UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         Before the Court is a First Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus ("Amended Petition") filed on August 10, 2016, by petitioner William T. Mace ("petitioner"), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. [Doc. No. 5.] On November 17, 2016, respondent W.L. Montgomery ("respondent") filed a Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus as untimely filed. [Doc. No. 11.] On March 10, 2017, petitioner filed an Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss. [Doc. No. 15.] After a thorough review of the Amended Petition [Doc. No. 5], respondent's Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 11], petitioner's Opposition thereto [Doc. No. 16], and the supporting documents submitted by the parties [12], the Court RECOMMENDS that respondent's Motion to Dismiss be GRANTED and that the Amended Petition be DISMISSED.

         I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         The record of petitioner's prior state and federal judicial proceedings presented in the Amended Petition spans approximately six years, beginning with his 2011 criminal conviction and sentencing, until the August 2016 filing of the Amended Petition, which is now before the Court. In July 2011, petitioner was convicted of one count of murder and two counts of attempted murder in San Diego Superior Court.[1] [Doc. No. 12-1.] On March 27, 2014, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment on all counts in that case[2].

         On May 6, 2014, petitioner filed a petition for review to exhaust state remedies in the California Supreme Court. [Doc. No. 12-2.] On June 11, 2014, the California Supreme Court summarily denied the petition in that case[3]. [Doc. No. 12-3.] On October 20, 2014, petitioner filed an application with the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, requesting an order directing petitioner's appellate trial counsel to furnish petitioner's appellate trial files to petitioner.[4] [Doc. No. 12-4.] On October 23, 2014, the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, denied this request without prejudice. [Doc. No. 12-6.] The Order notified petitioner that he could file an appropriate motion in the superior court Id.

         On December 15, 2014, petitioner filed a second application with the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, requesting an order directing petitioner's appellate trial counsel to furnish petitioner's appellate trial files to petitioner. [Doc. No. 12-7.] On December 15, 2014, the Court deemed the application a petition for writ of mandate, and assigned it case number D067129. [Doc. No. 12-8.] On December 17, 2014, the Court denied petitioner's application directing petitioner's appellate trial counsel to furnish petitioner's appellate trial files to petitioner. Id.

         On September 23, 2015, petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Superior Court of San Diego, case number HSC11516, alleging he received ineffective assistance of counsel from both his trial and appellate counsel, and that insufficient evidence supported his conviction. [Doc. No. 12-9.] On October 1, 2015, the Superior Court of San Diego denied the petition on the merits. [Doc. No. 12-10.]

         On December 7, 2015, petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, at case number D069352, alleging ineffective assistance counsel from his trial and appellate counsel, and insufficient evidence to support his conviction. [Doc. No. 12-11.] On December 9, 2015, the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, denied the petition on its merits. [Doc. No. 12-12.]

         On January 19, 2016, petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the California Supreme Court, case number S231901, again alleging ineffective assistance of counsel from his trial and appellate counsel, and insufficient evidence. [Doc. No. 12-13.] On April 27, 2016, the California Supreme Court denied the petition for writ of habeas corpus. [Doc. No. 12-14.]

         On July 11, 2016, petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in this Court (hereinafter "First Federal Petition"). [Doc. No. 1.] On July 18, 2016, this Court denied the First Federal Petition without prejudice for failing to pay the filing fee and failing to name a respondent. [Doc. No. 2.]

         The instant Amended Petition was filed on August 10, 2016. [Doc. No. 5.] The Amended Petition presents four grounds for relief: (1) ineffective assistance of trial counsel; (2) ineffective assistance of appellate counsel; (3) insufficient evidence to support his convictions; and (4) trial court's denial of the defense request to grant immunity to a defense witness deprived petitioner of his rights to due process, among other things. [Doc. No. 5, at pp. 6-10.]

         II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

         The Amended Petition is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 2254, as amended by the 1996 Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act ("AEDPA"). Section 2254(a) sets forth the scope of review for federal habeas corpus claims:

The Supreme Court, a Justice thereof, a circuit judge, or a district court shall entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus in 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 treatises of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a).
As amended, 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(l-2) reads:

(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 contray to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the ...

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.