Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-00100/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-00100-5/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 - 06cv100

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THOMAS OVIA HAITHCOCK,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 06cv100-MMA(JMA)

vs. ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED

STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE;

[Doc. No. 66]

OVERRULING PETITIONER’S

OBJECTIONS;

[Doc. No. 67]

DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS

[Doc. No. 1]

M. VEAL, Warden,

Respondent.

Petitioner Thomas Ovia Haithcock, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for

writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 [Doc. No. 1] challenging his state court

conviction and sentence for possessing and selling cocaine base. Respondent filed an answer to the

petition [Doc. No. 29], and Petitioner filed a traverse [Doc. No. 31]. The matter was referred to

United States Magistrate Judge Jan M. Adler for preparation of a Report and Recommendation

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Civil Local Rule 72.3. The magistrate judge issued a

well-reasoned and thorough report recommending the petition be denied in its entirety. Petitioner

timely filed objections, challenging the findings and conclusions of law set forth in the Report and

Case 3:06-cv-00100-MMA-JMA Document 68 Filed 06/16/10 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 - 06cv100

Recommendation. Respondent did not file an objection to the Report, or a response to Petitioner’s

objections. 

Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), in reviewing a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation,

the district court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which

objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or

recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 

OBJECTIONS

Petitioner objects to the report and recommendation in two respects. First, Petitioner objects

to the magistrate judge’s recommendation to deny his petition on ground one, the alleged violation

of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Petitioner asserts error based on the trial court’s denial of

his first and second requests for appointment of new counsel. Petitioner’s objection is essentially a

reiteration of the arguments raised in his petition and traverse. After reviewing the pertinent portion

of the record and the report de novo, the Court overrules the objection and finds that the magistrate

judge correctly concluded that no constitutional violation occurred. The trial court considered

Petitioner’s requests for new counsel carefully, made a complete record of the proceedings, and was

not unreasonable in denying those requests. 

Second, Petitioner objects to the magistrate judge’s recommendation to deny his petition on

ground two, the alleged sentencing error. Petitioner challenges the imposition of the upper term

sentence in his case. He asks this Court to find that he did not waive his right to a jury trial as to his

prior allegations and did not admit the facts underlying his prior convictions. As detailed by the

magistrate judge, the state court record explicitly demonstrates otherwise. 

For the reasons stated in the magistrate judge’s report, Petitioner’s sentence complied with

the requirement of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000) (emphasis added), that

“[o]ther than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond

the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable

doubt.” Apprendi’s exception for a defendant’s criminal history has been upheld by the Supreme

Court in subsequent cases. See James v. United States, 550 U.S. 192, 214 n.8 (2007); Cunningham

v. California, 549 U.S. 270, 274-75 (2007); United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 230-31 (2005);

Case 3:06-cv-00100-MMA-JMA Document 68 Filed 06/16/10 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 - 06cv100

Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 301 (2004). Petitioner waived his right to a jury trial on his

priors. The trial court found the allegations true beyond a reasonable doubt. The trial court then

sentenced Petitioner to an upper term based on those prior convictions and Petitioner’s inauspicious 

criminal history. The sentence fell squarely within Apprendi’s prior conviction exception. See

Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 247 (1998); Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 490. 

Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation and the files and records herein, the Court

OVERRULES Petitioner’s objections and ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation in its

entirety. Accordingly, the Court DENIES the petition and a writ of habeas corpus shall not issue in

this case.

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

“The district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final

order adverse to the applicant.” Rule 11 foll. 28 U.S.C. § 2254. A petitioner may not seek an appeal

of a claim arising out of state court detention unless the petitioner first obtains a certificate of

appealability from a district judge or a circuit judge under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). 

Under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1), a certificate of appealability will issue only if the petitioner makes a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 

For the reasons set forth in the Report and Recommendation and adopted herein, Petitioner

has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Accordingly, a certificate

of appealability should not issue in this action. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 16, 2010

Hon. Michael M. Anello

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-00100-MMA-JMA Document 68 Filed 06/16/10 Page 3 of 3