Jenkins v. CIM-MSF
Decision Date | 07 August 2012 |
Docket Number | CASE NO. CV 11-1722-DMS (WMc) |
Parties | CHRISTOPHER LEE JENKINS, Petitioner, v. WARDEN CIM-MSF, Respondent. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of California |
REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION OF
PETITION FOR WRIT OF
Shawn Albin, aka Christopher Lee Jenkins ("Petitioner"), a California inmate appearing pro se, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner challenges the validity of his guilty plea and sentencing. Respondent contends Petitioner's first four claims are barred from federal habeas relief because Petitioner failed to properly exhaust these claims and also failed to comply with state procedural rules. Regarding all seven1 of Petitioner's claims, Respondent argues Petitioner's constitutional rights were not violated, the state courts properly ruled on Petitioner's state petitions, and any error during the state proceedings was harmless.
The Court submits this Report and Recommendation to United States District Judge Dana M. Sabraw pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule H.C.2 of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California.
After reviewing the Petition, Respondent's Answer and Memorandum of Points andAuthorities in support thereof, the Lodgments filed by Respondent, the Petitioner's Traverse and all the supporting documents submitted by the parties, the Court RECOMMENDS the Petition be DENIED for the reasons discussed below.
Petitioner was charged with commercial burglary. (Lodgment 1 at p.1-5.) Petitioner pleaded guilty to commercial burglary. (Lodgment 1 at p. 6.) Petitioner also admitted to a prior robbery conviction from Oregon, for which he served time in prison. (Lodgment 1 at p. 6.) Before the Change of Plea and Immediate Sentencing hearing ("Hearing"), Petitioner, with the assistance of counsel, read, initialed and signed a Plea of Guilty form. The form listed the charges, Petitioner's constitutional rights, the consequences of a guilty plea, and other waivers. (Lodgment 1.) The form included check-boxes which Petitioner was instructed to initial after reading the corresponding information. By initialing twenty check-boxes on the form, Petitioner indicated his intent to waive his constitutional rights in order to plead guilty and indicated his understanding and acceptance of the consequences of his guilty plea. (Lodgment 1.) Additionally, Petitioner initialed to confirm he entered his plea "freely and voluntarily," he was "sober and [his] judgment is not impaired," and he had not "consumed any drug, alcohol or narcotics within the past 24 hours." (Lodgment 1 at p. 6.) Petitioner initialed check-boxes indicating his intent to waive his constitutional rights in order to plead guilty, including his right to a speedy and public trial by jury, his right to confront and cross-examine all witnesses, his right to remain silent, and his right to present evidence on his behalf. (Lodgment 1 at p. 6.) Petitioner initialed check-boxes under the "Consequences of Plea of Guilty or No Contest" section and initialed to confirm he "gives up [his] right to a full probation report before sentencing" under the "Other Waiver" section. Also, Petitioner handwrote that he enters a guilty plea for "1 count PC 459," a "strike prior," and a "prison prior." (Lodgment 1.)
At the Hearing, Petitioner verbally waived his constitutional rights and plead guilty to commercial burglary, admitted to a prior robbery offense, and admitted to serving a prior prison term. The following are relevant portions of the hearing transcript:
The trial judge sentenced Petitioner to five years in prison. (Lodgment 2 at 6:10-20). Petitioner filed a notice of appeal challenging the validity of his plea and requested a certificate of probable cause in the superior court. (Lodgment 1 at p. 23-24.) The superior court denied Petitioner's request. (Lodgment 1 at p. 40.)
On direct appeal, Petitioner, represented by counsel, filed a Wende brief with the Court of Appeal. (Lodgment 2.) In his brief, Petitioner's counsel did not affirmatively allege any arguable issue, but asked the court to review the record for error pursuant to People v. Wende, 25 Cal. 3d 436, 158 Cal. Rptr. 839, 600 P.2d 1071 (1979) and Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967). (Lodgment 2 at pp. 4-5.) With the appellate court's permission, Petitioner submitted a supplemental brief challenging the validity of his plea. (Lodgment 5.) Petitioner argued his guilty plea to commercial burglary and prior offense were invalid, his prior offense from Oregon was not a "strike", and the trial court did not verbally advise Petitioner of his constitutional rights. After reviewing the record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 (1979), the appellate court found no reasonably arguable appellate issues and affirmed judgment. Petitioner did not filed a petition for review in the California Supreme Court. (Doc. 1 at pg 2.)
Petitioner filed writs of habeas corpus with the superior court, court of appeal, and the California Supreme Court, challenging the validity of his guilty plea and sentencing. Each petitionraised the following issues: (1) Petitioner did not admit to committing a prior burglary; (2) Petitioner's prior offense from Oregon does not apply under California's "Three Strikes" law;...
To continue reading
Request your trial