Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05996/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05996-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JUAN MARTIN PADILLA, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

MIKE KNOWLES, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:03-cv-05996-AWI-SMS-HC

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 20)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO

ENTER JUDGMENT

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On April 14, 2005, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and

Recommendation that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be

DENIED, and that judgment be entered in favor of Respondent. This

Report and Recommendation was served on all parties and contained

notice that any objections were to be filed within thirty (30) days

from the date of service of that order. On May 18, 2005,

Petitioner filed objections to the Report and Recommendation.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636

(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de novo review of the case. 

Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Petitioner's

Case 1:03-cv-05996-AWI -SMS Document 22 Filed 08/23/05 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

objections, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's Report

and Recommendation is supported by the record and proper analysis. 

Petitioner's objections present no grounds for questioning the

Magistrate Judge's analysis.

In his objections, Petitioner contends that the Magistrate

Judge erred by not considering the "state court record." 

Specifically, Petitioner argues the Magistrate Judge did not

consider the declarations of his attorney and himself, apparently

confirming the attorney never told Petitioner that his guilty plea

to burglary could count as a strike, and did not consider the

transcripts of the proceedings. The failure of the court to

review declarations which Plaintiff believes would assist him is

not the fault of the Magistrate Judge. In a habeas corpus

proceeding, the burden is on Petitioner to prove, by a

preponderance of the evidence, the facts necessary to support his

claim. McKenzie v. McCormick, 27 F.3d 1415, 1419 (9th Cir.1994). 

"Conclusory allegations which are not supported by a statement of

specific facts do not warrant habeas relief." James v. Borg, 24

F.3d 20, 26 (9th Cir.1994). Thus, Petitioner should have provided

the declarations to the court and not assumed that the Magistrate

Judge would somehow obtain every possible document concerning this

case. 

Regardless of whose responsibility it was to provide evidence

helpful to Petitioner, the court will assume for the purposes of

ruling on the pending petition that, at the time he pled guilty,

Petitioner was not advised that his guilty plea could be used as a

strike against him in later proceedings. As explained by the

Magistrate Judge, a plea is knowing and voluntary if the defendant

Case 1:03-cv-05996-AWI -SMS Document 22 Filed 08/23/05 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

is made fully aware of a plea’s direct consequences. United States

v. Brownlie, 915 F.2d 527, 528 (9th Cir.1990); Carter v. McCarthy,

806 F.2d 1373, 1375 (9th Cir.1986). Habeas corpus relief is not

available if the defendant is not informed of all collateral

consequences of the plea. Torrey v. Estelle, 842 F.2d 234, 235

(9th Cir.1988). The possibility that a future sentence could be

enhanced by the guilty plea is only a collateral consequence of the

plea. Brownlie, 915 F.2d at 528; United States v. Garrett, 680

F.2d 64, 65-66 (9th Cir.1982). Thus, the constitution was not

violated even if the court assumes Petitioner did not know his

guilty plea could be used as a strike. In addition, as explained

by the Magistrate Judge, Petitioner has not yet suffered any

prejudice from this guilty plea. The Magistrate Judge found, and

Petitioner has not contested, that Petitioner's more recent

convictions were not enhanced by the prior guilty plea.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Report and Recommendation, filed April 14, 2005, is

ADOPTED IN FULL; 

2. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED; and,

3. The Clerk of Court ENTER judgment in favor of Respondent.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 22, 2005 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05996-AWI -SMS Document 22 Filed 08/23/05 Page 3 of 3