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.

Mountford v. People

United States District Court, C.D. California

November 8, 2019

David G. Mountford
v.
The People of California

          Present: The Honorable KENLY KIYA KATO, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

          CIVIL MINUTES-GENERAL

         Proceedings: (In Chambers) Order to Show Cause Why this Action Should Not Be Dismissed as Untimely

         I.

         INTRODUCTION

         Petitioner 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.

         II.

         BACKGROUND

         A. STATE COURT PROCEEDINGS

         On 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 formal probation.

         At a 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.

         On 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.

         On 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.

         On October 15, 2018, Petitioner filed a petition for review in the California Supreme Court. Cal. Courts, Appellate Courts Case Info., Docket, https://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/ case/dockets.cfm?dist=0&doc_id=2266645&doc_no=S251930&requesttoken=NiIwLSIkTkg%2B 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 at 3.

         Petitioner 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 ...


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.