Chamberlain v. Pliler
| Decision Date | 09 February 2004 |
| Docket Number | No. CV 03-5194-DOC (RNB).,CV 03-5194-DOC (RNB). |
| Citation | 307 F.Supp.2d 1128 |
| Parties | Lee CHAMBERLAIN, Jr., Petitioner, v. C.K. PLILER, Warden, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Central District of California |
Maureen L. Fox, Maureen L. Fox Law Offices, Los Gatos, CA, for Petitioner.
Lee Chamberlain, Jr., Represa, CA, Pro se.
Xiomara Costello, Office of Attorney General of California, Los Angeles, CA, for Respondent.
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition, all the records and files herein, and the recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. Objections to the Report and Recommendation have been filed herein. Having made a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objection has been made, the Court concurs with and adopts the findings, conclusions and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge.
IT IS ORDERED that Judgment be entered denying the Petition and dismissing this action with prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall serve copies of this Order and the Judgment herein by United States mail on petitioner, petitioner's counsel and counsel for respondent.
This Report and Recommendation is submitted to the Honorable David O. Carter, United States District Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 and General Order 194 of the United States District Court for the Central District of California.
On August 18, 2003, petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody ("Pet.") herein. On November 7, 2003, respondent filed an Answer to the Petition ("Ans."), to which petitioner (then represented by counsel) filed a Traverse ("Trav.") on November 26, 2003.
Thus, this matter now is ready for decision.
On or about May 16, 2000, a Los Angeles Superior Court jury found petitioner guilty of one count of second degree robbery, one count of assault with a deadly weapon ("ADW"), one count of mayhem, and one count of torture. In addition, the jury found true the special allegations that petitioner personally used a deadly weapon (i.e., broken bottle), and personally inflicted great bodily injury upon the victim during the commission of the above offenses. (See 1 Clerk's Transcript ["CT"] 188-91, 193-95; 5 Reporter's Transcript ["RT"] 2703-06).1 In a bifurcated trial, the jury found true the special allegations that petitioner had suffered two prior felony convictions (i.e., a 1985 conviction for second degree robbery, and a 1992 ADW conviction). (See 1 CT 192, 197; 5 RT 2759-60).2 On June 5, 2000, immediately prior to sentencing, the trial court found that petitioner's two prior felony convictions were serious or violent felony convictions. The trial court then proceeded to sentence petitioner in accordance with California's "Three Strikes Law"3 to state prison for an indeterminate term of 61 years to life. (See 1 CT 204-08; 5 RT 3010-11).4
Petitioner appealed his conviction and sentence to the California Court of Appeal, raising inter alia claims corresponding to the first, fifth and sixth claims being alleged in the Petition herein. . In an unpublished decision issued on July 6, 2001, the California Court of Appeal found that the trial court had erred in relying on the preliminary hearing transcript, rather than the trial transcript, to determine whether petitioner's 1992 ADW conviction was a serious or violent felony conviction. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal reversed and remanded the matter to the trial court for a retrial of the nature of the 1992 ADW conviction and for a recomputation of the sentence. In all other respects, the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment. .
Petitioner then filed a Petition for Review with the California Supreme Court, wherein he alleged inter alia claims corresponding to the first, second, fifth and sixth claims being alleged in the Petition herein. . On October 10, 2001, the California Supreme Court summarily denied the Petition for Review without citation of authority. .
On remand, the trial court retried the issue of whether petitioner's 1992 ADW conviction was a serious or violent felony conviction. The trial court found that petitioner's 1992 conviction was a serious felony conviction, denied petitioner's motion to recompute the sentence, and allowed the original sentence to stand. (See 2 CT 29; 1/24/02 RT 54).
Petitioner then appealed his sentence to the California Court of Appeal, raising claims corresponding to the first through fourth claims being alleged in the Petition herein. . In an unpublished decision issued on December 20, 2002, the California Court of Appeal rejected petitioner's claims and affirmed the judgment. .5
In his ensuing Petition for Review to the California Supreme Court, petitioner alleged claims corresponding to the third and fourth claims being alleged in the Petition herein. . On March 5, 2003, the California Supreme Court summarily denied the Petition for Review without citation of authority. .
Since petitioner is not contesting the sufficiency of the evidence to support his underlying convictions for second degree robbery, ADW, mayhem and torture, the following summary is taken from the "Evidence at Trial" section of the first California Court of Appeal opinion (see Ans. Exh. B at 104-08):
Paula Johnson testified that on October 26, 1999, between 2:00 a.m. and 3:00 a.m., she was walking on 38th Street towards Western Avenue after dropping a friend at home. A man carrying a backpack and purse started to follow her. She identified the man in court as appellant. He spoke to her, asking where he could find "dope." She told him to go up Western. He asked if she wanted a drink. He told her he had been drinking and only a little was left. She reached for the bottle he was holding, but he put the bottle to her mouth and started pouring. She tried to run away. The next thing she knew, she was on the ground with glass in her hair and something warm running down her face. Appellant grabbed her and asked her for money. He put the broken bottle up to her neck. Because she had put her hands up to protect herself, one of her hands was cut. She gave him money, between $8 and $11. Her change was in a plastic bag. After she handed over the money, appellant searched her and found an additional penny.
Appellant put the broken bottle against her back and forced her to walk down a street and alleyway, saying he intended to have sex with her and then kill her. During this time, he cut her face and hit her in the mouth, causing her to lose several teeth. He rubbed the broken glass on her breast, threatening to cut it off. He told her that if she did not cooperate, the same thing would happen to her that happened to the person who owned the purse. He forced her to lift her shirt. At some point, he tried to take her pants off or force her to take her pants off near the steps of a house. At another point, she got on her knees and prayed.
Johnson tried to get blood on appellant in case something happened to her. She had on slippers which he forced her to take off because they were slowing her down. Later, she testified that she kicked off one slipper in order to leave evidence where someone could find it. While appellant was forcing her to walk down the street or alleyway, Johnson tried to get away by seeking help from a man who was going into his house. She also tried to convinced appellant that the man had drugs in order to distract him. The man did not help her. After her unsuccessful appeal to the man for help, appellant beat her, cut her face, and threatened to kill her. He then walked away.
Once appellant was gone, Johnson made her way back to Western where police cars and an ambulance were parked. She described her assailant to the police. While she was being treated by paramedics, the police told her they had someone in custody. Moments later, she identified appellant who was seated in the back of a police car at the time. She believed she told the officers who initially interviewed her about everything that had happened during her ordeal.
Johnson had surgery on her face twice to repair the damage and get pieces of glass out. She received stitches. One tooth was knocked out and two others had to be pulled.
On cross-examination, Johnson admitted she and her friend had drunk five to seven malt liquors that night approximately three hours before she encountered appellant. She had smoked a quarter gram of cocaine earlier that day.
Los Angeles Police Department Office (sic) Chuong Bao testified that he and his partner responded to a call at 3:15 a.m. By the time they arrived at 38th and Western, another officer was interviewing Johnson. Johnson's face was bleeding. Officer Bao heard over the radio that the suspect was wearing a green shirt and black pants, carrying a backpack, and was last seen walking northbound on a nearby street. An air unit broadcast the location of a man running across Exposition and illuminated the suspect. Officer Bao and his partner approached the suspect, who he identified in court as appellant. Appellant was wearing a light green shirt and black pants and wearing a backpack. He began to run and Officer Bao chased him. When Officer Bao caught up with appellant, appellant tried to hit him. Eventually four officers were able to take appellant into custody. Even after being placed in the police car, appellant was out of control and combative. He was taken to Johnson, who identified him as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Zarazu v. Foulk, Case No. CV 13-8769-DOC (KK)
...of the issues, the witness' safety, or interrogation that is repetitive or only marginally relevant."); Chamberlain v. Pliler, 307 F. Supp. 2d 1128, 1146-47 (C.D. Cal. 2004) (finding no Confrontation Clause violation where the probative value of evidence of a warrant for the victim's arrest......
- Paleteria La Michoacana, Inc. v. Productos Lacteos Tocumbo S.A. De C.V.
-
People v. McGee
...a conviction of a "violent" felony) that renders the defendant subject to an enhanced sentence. One such decision is Chamberlain v. Pliler (C.D.Cal.2004) 307 F.Supp.2d 1128. In that case, after the jury found that the defendant had suffered prior felony convictions for robbery and assault w......