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.

Broglia v. Hill

United States District Court, C.D. California, Western Division

October 17, 2019

COLLEEN BROGLIA, Petitioner,
v.
MOLLY HILL, Warden, Respondent.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          DOUGLAS F. MCCORMICK UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         I. BACKGROUND

         A. State Court Proceedings

         In 2010, Petitioner Colleen Broglia (“Petitioner”) pleaded guilty to gross vehicular manslaughter and was sentenced to eighteen years in state prison. See Dkt. 1 (“Petition”) at 2; see also Lodged Document (“LD”) 1 (abstract of judgment). Of relevance here, the trial court applied a six-year sentencing enhancement for causing great bodily injury under Penal Code § 12022.7 to Petitioner's conviction of gross vehicular manslaughter. See LD 1.[1]

         On November 20, 2017, Petitioner filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court a petition for writ of habeas corpus, arguing that the sentencing enhancement under § 12022.7 was unlawful. See LD 2. On January 5, 2018, the Superior Court denied her petition, holding that Petitioner's claim was waived by her guilty plea. See LD 3. On February 6, 2018, Petitioner filed a habeas corpus petition in the California Court of Appeal. See LD 4. On February 22, 2018, the California Court of Appeal denied her petition, stating that she had failed to demonstrate that she was entitled to habeas relief. See LD 5. On March 2, 2018, Petitioner filed a petition for review with the California Supreme Court. See LD 6. That court summarily denied her petition. See LD 7.

         B. Federal Court Proceedings

         On April 15, 2019, Petitioner filed in this Court a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The Petition raises two claims. First, the Petition argues that the six-year sentencing enhancement imposed under Penal Code § 12022.7 was “unlawful” or “unauthorized.” Petition at 5. This argument is based on a 2015 decision of the California Supreme Court, which held that a great bodily injury enhancement could not be attached to a conviction for murder or manslaughter. See People v. Cook, 60 Cal.4th 922, 938 (2015). Second, the Petition argues that the California Court of Appeal's summary denial of her habeas corpus petition violated her Fourteenth Amendment rights, because the petition stated a prima facie claim for relief. See Petition at 5.

         Respondent moved to dismiss the Petition. See Dkt. 13. Respondent argues that Petitioner's first claim is untimely and unexhausted. See id at 4-11. Respondent concedes that Petitioner's second claim would be timely but contends that it is not a cognizable basis for habeas relief. See id at 6 n.5. Petitioner filed an “objection” to Respondent's motion, which the Court interprets as an opposition. See Dkt. 16. The matter is now before the Court for decision.

         II. ANALYSIS

         A. Petitioner's Second Claim Is Not Cognizable

         As an initial matter, the Court agrees with Respondent that Petitioner's claim about the California Court of Appeal's decision denying her habeas corpus petition is not a basis for federal habeas relief. See Franzen v. Brinkman, 877 F.2d 26, 26 (9th Cir. 1989) (“[A] petition alleging errors in the state post-conviction review process is not addressable through habeas corpus proceedings.”).

         B. Petitioner's First Claim Is Barred by the Statute of Limitations

         1. Facial Untimeliness

         Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), a one-year limitation period applies to a federal petition for writ of habeas corpus filed by a person in state custody. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). This limitation period ordinarily begins running from “the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion 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.