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.

Singh v. Davis

United States District Court, E.D. California

June 6, 2017

BAKKAR SINGH, Petitioner,
v.
RON DAVIS, Respondent.

          FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

          GREGORY G. HOLLOWS, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY

         Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 2241 (actually 2254)[1] which authorizes the filing of a petition by a person in custody under the judgment and sentence of either a federal or a state court. Petitioner was tried, convicted and sentenced by the Yolo County Superior Court, which is located in the Eastern District of California and is therefore properly before this court. 28 U.S.C. § 2241§ (d). He challenges his sentence of 40 years to life after conviction in the Yolo County Superior Court for murder, theft of a car, theft of a gun and infliction of great bodily injury on the ground that the sentence imposed was “unauthorized” insofar as the jury verdict with respect to the sentencing enhancement would have only permitted a sentence of 25 years to life. ECF No. 1. As more fully discussed below, petitioner relies on a typographical error in the jury verdict form as the basis for this claim.

         Now pending is the respondent's Motion to Dismiss on the ground that the petition is barred by the statute of limitations found in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1995 [“AEDPA”]. Because this Motion specifically, and the case as a whole, rises and falls on the limitations question, the court will not provide any factual summary of the substance of petitioner's trial or his prior collateral attacks on the judgment.

         AEDPA STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS

         Petitioner's procedural history is important in understanding the outcome of the limitations motion. That history is as follows:

January 23, 2008 Judgment entered. Log. Doc. No. 1.
February 3, 2009 District Court of Appeal affirmance. Lod. Doc. No. 2.
April 17, 2009 California Supreme Court denies Petition for Review. Lod. Doc. No. 4.
November 5, 2014 Habeas Petition filed in Yolo Superior Court Lod. Doc. No. 5 [issue of improper sentencing first raised here]
January 14, 2015 Yolo Superior Court denies petition. Lod. Doc. No. 6
February 5, 2015 Habeas Petition filed in Third District Court of Appeal. Lod. Doc. No. 7.
February 12, 2015 Third District Court of Appeal denies petition. Lod. Doc. No. 8.
January 6, 2016 Habeas petition filed in Yolo Superior Court. Lod. Doc. No. 9
June 2, 2016 Yolo Superior Court denies petition. Lod. Doc. No. 10.
June 17, 2016 Habeas petition filed in Third District Court of Appeal ...

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.