United States District Court, C.D. California
ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS
SHASHI H. KEWALRAMANI, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
August 6, 2018, Petitioner Brett Walker
(“Petitioner”), proceeding pro se,
signed and subsequently filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus (“Pet.” or “Petition”)
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his 2014
conviction of robbery with a gun enhancement. Electronic Case
Filing Number (“ECF No.”) 1. Both parties have
consented to proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge.
ECF Nos. 2, 14.
Petition, Petitioner alleges two sentencing error claims.
Because neither of Petitioner's claims is cognizable on
federal habeas review and because they also fail on the
merits, the Court DENIES the claims and DISMISSES the
Petition with prejudice.
1, 2014, Petitioner pleaded no contest to one count of
robbery and admitted a related firearm allegation in the Los
Angeles County Superior Court. Electronic Case Filing Number
(“ECF No.”) 16-1 at 4-5. The trial court sentenced
Petitioner to two years for the robbery plus ten years for
the firearm enhancement. Id. Petitioner did not
appeal and his conviction became final 60 days later, on June
30, 2014, when his time to file a notice of appeal ran. Cal.
R. Ct. 8.308(a).
three years later, on June 5, 2017, Petitioner constructively
filed a motion in the state superior court to
modify his sentence under Proposition 57, arguing that his
robbery conviction should be deemed a nonviolent felony so as
to make him immediately eligible for parole consideration.
ECF No. 16-2. The superior court denied the motion on June
13, 2017, finding that Proposition 57 does not apply to a
violent crime such as robbery. ECF No. 16-1 at 5.
on June 18 and August 23, 2017, Petitioner sought relief
again in the superior court, requesting that that court
retroactively apply Proposition 57's juvenile justice
reforms because he was a juvenile when convicted, and refer
his case to the juvenile court for a fitness hearing. ECF
Nos. 16-3, 16-4. The superior court denied the request in a
reasoned order on September 1, 2017. ECF No. 16-1 at 6.
Petitioner thereafter sought reconsideration of the superior
court's order, which the superior court denied on October
4, 2017. Id.
meantime, on September 30, 2017, Petitioner constructively
filed a petition for writ of mandate in the California Court
of Appeal, requesting that his case be transferred to the
juvenile court for a fitness hearing under Proposition 57.
ECF No. 16-6. On October 24, 2017, the court of appeal
summarily denied the petition. ECF No. 16-7.
on November 12, 2017, Petitioner constructively filed another
habeas petition in the superior court, again asking that his
case be transferred to the juvenile court under Proposition
57. ECF No. 16-8. The superior court denied the petition on
November 21, 2017, reasoning that Proposition 57 is not
retroactive to a case that has reached final judgment. ECF
No. 16-1 at 7.
January 18, 2018, Petitioner constructively filed a habeas
petition in the California Court of Appeal seeking relief
under Proposition 57 and a new state law, California Senate
Bill No. 620. ECF No. 16-9. The court of appeal summarily
denied relief on February 20, 2018. ECF No. 16-10. Petitioner
next constructively filed a habeas petition in the California
Supreme Court on March 8, 2018, raising the same claims
raised in the court of appeal. ECF No. 16-11. On June 13,
2018, the California Supreme Court summarily denied relief.
ECF No. 16-12 at 2.
on July 16, 2018, Petitioner returned to the superior court
again where he constructively filed another habeas petition,
this time claiming he was entitled to a hearing under
People v. Franklin, 63 Cal.4th 261 (2016) because he
did not have a sufficient opportunity at his sentencing
hearing to make a meaningful record of information relevant
to a future youth offender parole hearing. ECF No. 16-13. The
superior court denied the petition on July 24, 2018, finding
that Petitioner was not entitled to a Franklin
hearing. ECF No. 16-1 at 8.
August 6, 2018, Petitioner constructively filed the pending
Petition in this Court. Following two extensions of time,
Respondent filed an Answer to Petition (“Ans.) on
December 28, 2018, along with a Memorandum of Points and
Authorities (“Ans. Mem.”). ECF No. 15. After the
Court, on its own motion, extended ...