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.

Charles v. State

United States District Court, C.D. California

May 11, 2017

ELERI CHARLES, Petitioner,
v.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Respondent.

          ORDER OF DISMISSAL

          BEVERLY REID O'CONNELL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         BACKGROUND

         On May 8, 2017, Petitioner, a prisoner in state custody proceeding pro se, filed “A Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Under Section 2254, or in the Alternative a Writ of Error Coram Nobis, 18 U.S.C. 1651(a) (Docket Entry No. 1), which the Court construes as Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (“Petition”). Petitioner challenges his 2009 conviction (pursuant to a plea of no contest) for sexual penetration by a foreign object and for forcible rape and the five-year sentence he received for that conviction in the Angeles County Superior Court[1] (Case No. LA056220). The Petition alleges the following grounds for federal habeas relief: (1) The trial court failed to specify to Petitioner that the registration requirement for a sex offender under California Penal Code § 2009 was lifelong; and (2) Petitioner's guilty plea was unintelligent and was based on the ineffective assistance of counsel, because the trial court and Petitioner's trial counsel failed to advise Petitioner of the lifelong registration requirement. (Petition at 1-19, Petitioner's Affidavit dated May 2, 2017 [2 pages]).

         On October 17, 2011, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in which he challenged the same 2009 conviction. See Charles Eleri v. James D. Hartley, CV 11-09169-BRO (AS); (Docket Entry No. 1) (“the first prior habeas action”). On August 7, 2014, the Court issued an Order and Judgment denying that habeas petition with prejudice, in accordance with the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. (Id.; Docket Entry Nos. 61-62). On the same date, the Court denied a certificate of appealability. (Id.; Docket Entry No. 63). On January 15, 2015, the Court denied a motion for relief from Judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(6). (Id.; Docket Entry No. 70). On June 15, 2015, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner's request for a certificate of appealability. (Id.; Docket Entry No. 71).

         On August 23, 2016, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in which he challenged the same 2009 conviction. See Charles Eleri v. James D. Hartley, CV 16-06328-BRO (AS); Docket Entry No. 1) (“the second prior habeas action”). On August 29, 2016, the Court issued an Order of Dismissal and Judgment dismissing that habeas petition without prejudice as an unauthorized second or successive petition. (Id.; Docket Entry Nos. 3-4). On September 15, 2016, the Court issued an Order denying a motion for relief from Judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(2) and (b)(6). (Id.; Docket Entry No. 6).

         DISCUSSION

         The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), enacted on April 24, 1996, provides in pertinent part that:

(a) No circuit or district judge shall be required to entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus to inquire into the detention of a person pursuant to a judgment of a court of the United States if it appears that the legality of such detention has been determined by a judge or court of the United States on a prior application for a writ of habeas corpus, except as provided in §2255.
(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 reasonable fact finder would have found the applicant guilty of the underlying offense.
(3)(A) Before a second or successive application permitted by this section is filed in the district court, the applicant shall move in the appropriate court of appeals for an order ...

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.