United States District Court, C.D. California
David G. Mountford
The People of California
Present: The Honorable KENLY KIYA KATO, UNITED STATES
(In Chambers) Order to Show Cause Why this Action Should Not
Be Dismissed as Untimely
David Mountford (“Petitioner”) has filed a
pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
(“Petition”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
It appears, however, the Petition is subject to dismissal as
untimely. The Court will provide Petitioner an opportunity to
address this issue before making a final determination
regarding whether the Petition should be dismissed.
STATE COURT PROCEEDINGS
December 12, 2012, Petitioner pleaded nolo contendere to the
charge of grand theft of property with a value exceeding $950
in violation of section 487(a) of the California Penal Code.
Dkt. 1, Pet.; see also People v. Mountford, No.
B287050, 2018 WL 4204253, at *1-2 (Cal.Ct.App. Sept. 4,
2018), review denied (Nov. 14, 2018). The trial
court sentenced Petitioner to seven years in prison,
suspended the sentence, and placed him on three years of
probation violation hearing in August of 2015, Petitioner
admitted to violating the terms of his probation.
Id. The court terminated probation and imposed the
seven-year prison sentence. Id.
October 1, 2017, Petitioner filed a Petition for Resentencing
pursuant to Proposition 47, section 1170.18 of the California
Penal Code (“Proposition 47”) in Los Angeles
County Superior Court, alleging the loss from his grand theft
conviction did not exceed $950. Id. At a hearing on
November 27, 2017, the court denied Petitioner's
petition, finding that his conviction for grand theft of
property with a value in excess of $950 rendered him
ineligible for Proposition 47 relief. Id.
December 15, 2017, Petitioner appealed the denial of his
Petition for Resentencing in the California Court of Appeal.
Id. On September 4, 2018, the California Court of
Appeal affirmed the denial of resentencing, finding he was
ineligible for resentencing under Proposition 47 and to the
extent he was seeking to challenge the circumstances of his
plea, he failed to timely appeal his plea. Id.
October 15, 2018, Petitioner filed a petition for review in
the California Supreme Court. Cal. Courts, Appellate Courts
Case Info., Docket,
WzBRSCM9VExJQEA0UDxTJiJOIzlTMCAgCg%3D%3D (last updated Nov.
7, 2019 at 1:38 PM). On November 14, 2018, the California
Supreme Court summarily denied review. Id.; Dkt. 1
also filed a habeas petition in the superior court, raising
the following claims: “(1) seeking invalidation of
plea; (2) I was not represented by Attorney of Record at time
of plea acceptance and sentencing.” Dkt. 1, Pet. at ...