Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03056/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03056-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY WHITNEY,

Petitioner,

 vs.

BILL LOCKYER, et al.,

Respondent(s).

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 05-3056 CRB (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Petitioner, a state prisoner currently on parole, has filed a pro se petition

for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging the execution of his

sentence following conviction for assault in the Superior Court of the State of

California in and for the County of Monterey. 

On February 4, 1998, petitioner was sentenced to eight years and four

months in state prison, followed by a three-year parole period upon his release

from prison. He was released on parole 467 days before the expiration of his

eight-year, four-month prison term (“3,040-day prison term”), but then suffered

three parole violations (for 90, 180 and 365 days, or 635 days total).

Petitioner contends that he is being kept unlawfully in custody (which

includes parole) because he has completed his 3,040-day prison-term and available

parole violation terms. The state courts rejected his claim on collateral review and

the instant federal petition followed.

Case 3:05-cv-03056-CRB Document 3 Filed 01/03/06 Page 1 of 5
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

DISCUSSION

This court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus "in behalf of a

person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that

he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United

States." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). The petition may not be granted with respect to any

claim that was adjudicated on the merits in state court unless the state court's

adjudication of the claim: "(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or

involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as

determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or (2) resulted in a decision

that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the

evidence presented in the State court proceeding." Id. § 2254(d).

A person has a fundamental right not to be subjected to a sentence that

exceeds that allowed by state law. See Gardner v. Florida, 430 U.S. 349, 358

(1977). A state sentence violates due process if it is in excess of that allowed by

state law. See Walker v. Endell, 850 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1987); see also

Marzano v. Kincheloe, 915 F.2d 549, 552 (9th Cir. 1990) (plea of guilty does not

permit state to impose sentence in excess of state law despite agreement of

defendant to sentence). However, state sentencing courts must be accorded wide

latitude in their decisions as to punishment and a federal court generally will not

review a state sentence within statutory limits. See Walker, 850 F.2d at 476. 

Petitioner’s claim is without merit because he is not being kept in custody

beyond the sentence allowed under state law. In California, a mandatory parole

term follows most prison terms. For persons such as petitioner, the mandatory

parole term is three years. Cal. Penal Code § 3000(b)(1). The parole term is

extended for time a parolee spends in prison on parole violations: "Time during

which parole is suspended because the prisoner has absconded or has been returned

Case 3:05-cv-03056-CRB Document 3 Filed 01/03/06 Page 2 of 5
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

to custody as a parole violator shall not be credited toward any period of parole

unless the prisoner is found not guilty of the parole violation. However, in no case,

except as provided in Section 3064 [regarding escapees], may a prisoner subject to

three years on parole be retained under parole supervision or in custody for a

period longer than four years from the date of his or her initial parole." Cal. Penal

Code § 3000(b)(5). The maximum time in prison for a parole revocation term is

generally one year. Cal. Penal Code § 3057(a). In sum, when petitioner left prison

after serving most of his 3,040-day prison term, he faced this parole scheme: his

parole term would start upon his release from prison, would be suspended during

any time he was back in prison on a parole violation, each parole violation could

lead to a prison term of up to a year, and the parole term that presumptively would

end in three years could last up to four years if suspended due to his reincarceration for parole violations. 

Petitioner served 2,573 days of his 3,040-day prison term. He also spent an

additional 467 days in prison due to parole violations. His three-year parole term

started upon his initial release from prison and could have ended three years later. 

However, because petitioner violated parole and received parole violation terms

totaling 635 months, his parole could be extended up to an additional year. 

Petitioner is not being kept in custody (which, again, includes parole) beyond the

time allowed by state law.

Petitioner’s contention that he cannot lawfully be retained in custody on

parole after serving the total length of his 3,040-day prison term is without merit. 

The law does not support petitioner’s position that a parolee can violate parole

repeatedly after he has been in prison for the maximum length of the initial prison

term imposed. His reliance on Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1972), to

argue that the "balance of the sentence" that a parole violator may be required to

Case 3:05-cv-03056-CRB Document 3 Filed 01/03/06 Page 3 of 5
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 4

serve refers to the balance of the original prison term takes the phrase out of

context and misreads Morrissey in an unpersuasive way. Morrissey was concerned

with the procedural protections required when parole was revoked and did not

purport to put constitutional limitations on the length of parole or the

consequences of a parole violation or the appropriate length of a parole revocation

prison term. California's parole system – with its fixed three-year paroles for a

large class of convicts, its allowance of multiple parole revocations, and its

allowance of different parole revocation terms so that more serious violations

receive more serious parole revocation terms -- is not barred by Morrissey. 

Petitioner's contention also lacks common sense, because it would make most

California inmates' mandatory three-year parole terms largely useless by depriving

parole authorities of a significant enforcement mechanism. Compelling parolees

to comply with parole restrictions would be difficult if they could not be

imprisoned once they had served the maximum length of the original prison term. 

Petitioner identifies no authority for his unusual view of parole. 

Petitioner has not shown that he is being required to serve a sentence

beyond that to which he was lawfully sentenced under state law. He has not shown

a due process violation and is not entitled to federal habeas relief. The state

courts’ rejection of petitioner’s claim was neither contrary to, or an unreasonable

application of, clearly established Supreme Court precedent. See 28 U.S.C. §

2254(d). 

/

/

/

/

Case 3:05-cv-03056-CRB Document 3 Filed 01/03/06 Page 4 of 5
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 5

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is

DISMISSED.

The clerk shall terminate all pending motions as moot, enter judgment in

favor of respondent and close the file. 

SO ORDERED.

DATED: Jan. 3, 2006 

CHARLES R. BREYER

United States District Judge 

Case 3:05-cv-03056-CRB Document 3 Filed 01/03/06 Page 5 of 5