Fonseca v. Hall

Decision Date18 July 2008
Docket NumberNo. CV 04-5836-CJC (RC).,CV 04-5836-CJC (RC).
Citation568 F.Supp.2d 1110
PartiesFrancisco FONSECA, Petitioner, v. James E. HALL, et al., Corrections, Respondents.
CourtU.S. District Court — Central District of California

Francisco Fonseca, Blythe, CA, pro se.

Kenneth John Kao, Margaret E. Maxwell, Office of Attorney General of California, Los Angeles, CA, for Respondents.

ORDER ADOPTING FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

CORMAC J. CARNEY, District Judge.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636, the Court has reviewed the First Amended Petition and other papers along with the attached Final Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Rosalyn M. Chapman, as well as petitioner's objections, and has made a de novo determination.

IT IS ORDERED that (1) the Final Report and Recommendation is approved and adopted; (2) the Final Report and Recommendation is adopted as the findings of fact and conclusions of law herein; and (3) Judgment shall be entered denying the First Amended Petition for writ of habeas corpus and dismissing the action with prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall serve copies of this Order, the Magistrate Judge's Final Report and Recommendation and Judgment by the United States mail on the petitioner.

JUDGMENT

Pursuant to the Order of the Court adopting the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of United States Magistrate Judge Rosalyn M. Chapman,

IT IS ADJUDGED that the First Amended Petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied and the action is dismissed with prejudice.

FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF A UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ROSALYN M. CHAPMAN, United States Magistrate Judge.

This Final Report and Recommendation1 is submitted to the Honorable Cormac J. Carney, United States District Judge, by Magistrate Judge Rosalyn M. Chapman, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 and General Order 05-07 of the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

BACKGROUND
I

On April 25, 2000, in Los Angeles County Superior Court case no. KA044980, a jury convicted petitioner Francisco Fonseca of one count of conspiracy to commit kidnapping for ransom in violation of California Penal Code ("P.C.") § 182(a)(1) (count 1) and three counts of kidnapping for ransom in violation of P.C. § 209(a) (counts 2-4), and, as to all counts, the jury found that a principal was armed with a handgun within the meaning of P.C. § 12022(a)(1). Clerk's Transcript ("CT") 232-37, 240-43. The petitioner was sentenced to three consecutive terms of life with the possibility of parole on his kidnapping convictions and a life sentence on the conspiracy conviction, which was stayed pursuant to P.C. § 654. CT 244-46, 248-49.

The petitioner appealed his convictions to the California Court of Appeal, CT 247, which affirmed the judgment in an unpublished opinion filed April 12, 2001. Motion to Dismiss ("Motion"), Exh. C. On May 15, 2001, petitioner filed a petition for review in the California Supreme Court, which denied review on June 20, 2001.2 Id., Exhs. D-E.

On July 20, 2004,3 petitioner filed a habeas corpus petition in the California Supreme Court,4 which issued an Order to Show Cause on November 18, 2004, returnable before the Los Angeles County Superior Court. Id., Exhs. F, G at 120. On June 14, 2005, the Superior Court held an evidentiary hearing, and denied petitioner's habeas corpus petition. Id., Exh. G at 122-23; Lodgment nos. 5-7, 10. On August 16, 2005, petitioner filed a habeas corpus application in the California Court of Appeal, which was denied on February 9, 2006. Id., Exhs. H-I. On February 21, 2006, petitioner filed a second habeas corpus petition in the California Supreme Court,5 which denied the petition on November 29, 2006, with citation to In re Miller, 17 Cal.2d 734, 112 P.2d 10 (1941).6 Notice of Lodgment (May 9, 2006), Exh. A; Supplemental Opposition to Motion, Exh. 9.

II

The California Court of Appeal, in affirming petitioner's convictions, made the following factual findings:7 On June 10, 1999, Janet Renteria, Judith Renteria, Juan Salcedo and Alexander Salcedo entered the United States from Mexico illegally with the help of "Il Moreno." They believed that their aunt, Lorena Valasquez, and their uncle, Joel Salcedo, would pay Il Moreno for his services later.

Once across the border and in Calexico, the Renterias and Alexander Salcedo met with petitioner. Juan Salcedo returned to Mexico. Petitioner drove the Renterias and Alexander in a van to a house in El Monte. There, they met three other men, known to them as "Pepe" (Jose Beltran), "Chuy" (Jose Fonseca) and "Mono" (Arnaldo Cosio).8 Alexander gave the men the telephone number for their aunt and uncle.

Beltran called Valasquez and Salcedo, told them that he had four of their nieces and nephews in the United States and demanded $1200 for each one. Salcedo told Beltran that he needed time to collect the money. Beltran said that he would call back. He called Salcedo several times over the next few days.

Janet, Judith and Alexander were kept at the house while the men waited for their aunt and uncle to raise the money. Petitioner was at the house every day. Judith and Janet did not feel free to leave. Judith observed a gun in Beltran's waistband.

On June 14, 1999, Salcedo told Beltran that he had the money. Beltran told him to go to the 7-11 on Santa Anita Street in El Monte. When Salcedo and Valasquez arrived at the 7-11, Salcedo called Beltran.

Cosio and two other men drove Janet to the 7-11 in one car, while Beltran and petitioner drove Judith and Alexander in another car. When they reached the 7-11, Salcedo and Valasquez showed Beltran the cash which they had. Beltran grabbed the money, yelled that it was false, and drove away. As the men left the parking lot, they yelled to Salcedo that they were going to kill his nieces and nephew and dump their bodies in the desert.

Valasquez called the police, while Salcedo tried unsuccessfully to follow the men.

The men drove the Renterias and Alexander back to the house in El Monte. Petitioner was at the house. There, petitioner told Judith that she would be killed and her body thrown into the desert. Then, Cosio drove Janet and Judith to an apartment in Los Angeles in one car while Beltran drove Alexander in a separate car. Petitioner and Jose Fonseca were at the apartment when Janet and Judith arrived. There was a gun in the apartment, and Janet and Judith did not feel free to leave.

After about one and a half days, the Renterias and Alexander were moved to an apartment next door to the one they were put into initially. There were about 10 to 17 illegal immigrants in the apartment. They were guarded by Beltran.

While the Renterias and Alexander were being held at the apartments. El Monte Police investigated Valasquez's and Salcedo's complaint that their nieces and nephews were being held for ransom. Using the telephone numbers which Salcedo had called, the police located a house in El Monte. The police kept the house under surveillance, and eventually conducted a traffic stop of a car which drove away from the house. Jose Fonseca was the driver of the car and petitioner was a passenger. At about the same time, the police conducted a traffic stop of another car which drove away from the El Monte house. This car was driven by Beltran. Beltran eventually gave police the address of an apartment in Los Angeles where he said the Renterias and Alexander were located.

Police went to the address given by Beltran and yelled "El Monte Police." Judith and Janet came to a window, and told police that they were being held against their will and that their captors were not in the apartment. Police forced the door open and found 16 people who had paid a fee to be smuggled into the United States.

At trial, petitioner testified that he was in El Centro following a visit to relatives in Mexico, and that he and a friend, Antonio, agreed to drive a van full of illegal immigrants, including Janet, Judith and Alexander, to El Monte. In return, petitioner would only have to pay $250 for his transportation.

They arrived at a house in El Monte at about 7 p.m. Petitioner was surprised to see his cousin, Jose Fonseca, at the house. Petitioner believed Jose lived in Mexico. Petitioner stayed at the house until 9 p.m., waiting for a ride.

The next day, June 13, petitioner went to his sister's house at about 9 a.m. and stayed there all day until about 8 p.m. He did not go to El Monte.

On June 14, Antonio visited petitioner and asked for the $250. At about 1 p.m., Antonio drove petitioner to a barbecue at the El Monte house. He saw Judith, Janet and Alexander. Petitioner returned home at about 9 p.m. He stayed home the rest of the evening. Petitioner did not threaten Janet or Judith. He did not learn of the 7-11 incident until after his arrest.

On June 15, petitioner called Jose Fonseca and asked him for a ride to perform some errands. Jose picked up petitioner. Beltran was in the car. They drove to the El Monte house and dropped off Beltran. Later that day, petitioner was arrested.

III

On July 12, 2004, petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed his initial habeas corpus petition challenging his convictions and sentence, and on August 11, 2004, this Court ordered the matter stayed and held in abeyance while petitioner exhausted his claims in the California courts. However, on August 17, 2005, the Court vacated the Order staying the proceedings, and on October 21, 2005, petitioner filed a First Amended Petition ("Petition") for habeas corpus relief, which is currently pending. On March 8, 2006, respondent filed a motion to dismiss the First Amended Petition, arguing it is a "mixed" petition, and subsequently respondent filed a supplemental brief claiming the petition is untimely. This Court then appointed counsel to represent petitioner in opposing respondent's motion to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • State v. Nissley
    • United States
    • Arizona Court of Appeals
    • October 20, 2015
    ...consent is a defense to a crime that requires the State to prove a taking was "against the will" of the victim); Fonseca v. Hall, 568 F.Supp.2d 1110, 1131 (C.D.Cal.2008) ("[A] finding that the victims were confined against their will necessarily implied that the victims had not consented.")......
  • Espinoza v. Hatton
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of California
    • January 28, 2020
    ...of Reporter's Transcript are admitted.(24) Exhibit 24: The Ninth Circuit's Memorandum Decision is admitted.(25) Exhibit 25: Fonseca v. Hall, 568 F. Supp. 2d 1110 (C.D. Cal 2008) is admitted.(26) Exhibit 26: Because of the inconsistent labeling and numbering between the parties' Joint Exhibi......
  • Jones v. Warden, Lebanon Corr. Inst.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio
    • March 7, 2014
    ...the type of extraordinary circumstance which will justify equitably tolling the statute oflimitations. See, e.g., Fonseca v. Hall, 568 F.Supp.2d 1110 (C.D. Cal. 2008). Here, the availability of equitable tolling very much depends on what the Court finds the facts to be, so the Court now tur......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT