Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01710/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01710-0/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 This information is derived from the petition for writ of habeas corpus.

1

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SERGIO PEDRAZA, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:07-CV-01710 OWW GSA HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

REGARDING PETITION FOR WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS 

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

BACKGROUND1

On May 18, 2005, Petitioner was convicted in the Kern County Superior Court of robbery

and receiving stolen property in violation of Cal. Penal Code §§ 212.5(c), 667(a). Allegations that

Petitioner had suffered ten prior strike convictions were found to be true. Petitioner was sentenced

to serve an aggregate indeterminate term of sixty years to life in state prison. 

Petitioner appealed his conviction to the California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District

Case 1:07-cv-01710-OWW -GSA Document 6 Filed 12/06/07 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 2

(hereinafter “Fifth DCA”). On August 22, 2005, the Fifth DCA affirmed the judgment. See

Exhibit 2, Petition. Petitioner then filed a petition for review in the California Supreme Court. On

October 25, 2006, the California Supreme Court denied review. See Exhibit 3, Answer.

On November 26, 2007, the instant federal petition for writ of habeas corpus was received in

this Court. The petition contains the following two grounds for relief: 1) “Information communicated

to police officer failed to furnish him with probable cause to detain Petitioner and search his

belongings and should have sustained timely defense counsel’s objection at hearing on motion to

suppress, was not harmless error thus violated Petitioner’s rights under 4 and 14 Amends. to U.S. th th

Const.”; and 2) “Petitioner was denied the right to a jury trial on issue of his identity as the

perpetrator of strike prior convictions used as basis for sentencing enhancement violated his rights

under Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466 and his 6 and 14 Amends. rights under U.S. th th

Const.”

DISCUSSION

I. Preliminary Review of Petition

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides in pertinent part:

If it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not

entitled to relief in the district court, the judge must dismiss the petition and direct the clerk

to notify the petitioner. 

The Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 8 indicate that the court may dismiss a petition for writ of

habeas corpus, either on its own motion under Rule 4, pursuant to the respondent’s motion to

dismiss, or after an answer to the petition has been filed. See Herbst v. Cook, 260 F.3d 1039 (9

th

Cir.2001). A petition for habeas corpus should not be dismissed without leave to amend unless it

appears that no tenable claim for relief can be pleaded were such leave granted. Jarvis v. Nelson,

440 F.2d 13, 14 (9 Cir. 1971). th

II. Failure to State a Cognizable Federal Claim

A. Unreasonable Search

In his first claim for relief, Petitioner contends he was denied due process under the Fourth

Amendment when he was subjected to an unreasonable search and seizure. He alleges the

information provided to the arresting officer by police dispatch was insufficient to provide the officer

Case 1:07-cv-01710-OWW -GSA Document 6 Filed 12/06/07 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 3

with reasonable suspicion to detain Petitioner and search his belongings. Petitioner argues the trial

court erroneously denied the motion to suppress.

A federal district court cannot grant habeas corpus relief on the ground that evidence was

obtained by an unconstitutional search and seizure if the state court has provided the petitioner with a

"full and fair opportunity to litigate" the Fourth Amendment issue. Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465,

494 (1976); Woolery v. Arvan, 8 F.3d 1325, 1326 (9 Cir. 1993), cert denied, 511 U.S. 1057 (1994). th

The only inquiry this Court can make is whether Petitioner had a fair opportunity to litigate his

claim, not whether Petitioner did litigate nor even whether the court correctly decided the claim. 

Ortiz-Sandoval v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 891, 899 (9 Cir. 1996); see also, Gordon v. Duran, 895 F.2d 610, th

613 (9 Cir. 1990) (holding that because Cal. Penal Code § 1538.5 provides opportunity to challenge th

evidence, dismissal under Stone was necessary).

The policy behind the Stone Court's analysis is that the exclusionary rule is applied to stop

future unconstitutional conduct of law enforcement. Stone, 428 U.S. at 492. However, excluding

evidence that is not untrustworthy creates a windfall to the defendant at a substantial societal cost. 

See Stone, 428 U.S. at 489-90; Woolery, 8 F.3d at 1327-28. Thus, the Ninth Circuit has described

the rationale for this rule by saying:

The holding is grounded in the Court's conclusion that in cases where a petitioner's

Fourth Amendment claim has been adequately litigated in state court, enforcing the

exclusionary rule through writs of habeas corpus would not further the deterrent and

educative purposes of the rule to an extent sufficient to counter the negative effect

such a policy would have on the interests of judicial efficiency, comity and

federalism. 

Woolery, 8 F.3d at 1326; see also Stone, 428 U.S. at 493-494.

In this case, Petitioner’s Fourth Amendment claim was litigated through a suppression

hearing in the Kern County Superior Court. After hearing argument from the prosecution and the

defense, the trial court denied the motion. The Court finds that the state court provided Petitioner

with a "full and fair opportunity to litigate" his Fourth Amendment claim. Stone, 428 U.S. at 494. 

Pursuant to Stone v. Powell, the Court cannot grant habeas relief. The claim should be dismissed

with prejudice. 

Case 1:07-cv-01710-OWW -GSA Document 6 Filed 12/06/07 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 4

B. Right to Jury Trial on Issue of Petitioner’s Identity

In his second claim for relief, Petitioner alleges he was denied his right to a jury trial on the

issue of his identity as the individual who committed the strike priors of which Petitioner was

charged. An error that violates a defendant’s rights under the Constitution requires automatic

reversal if it constitutes a “structural defect” in the trial. Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 310

(1991). Depriving a defendant of his right to a jury trial would constitute such structural error.

Therefore, if Petitioner’s argument is valid and structural error occurred, automatic reversal would be

required in this case.

As Petitioner correctly points out, in Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 243-

247 (1998), the Supreme Court held that a prior conviction that is used as a sentencing enhancement

is not subject to a requirement that a jury find it true beyond a reasonable doubt. In Apprendi v. New

Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 489-490 (2000), the Supreme Court acknowledged that Almendarez-Torres

may have been incorrectly decided because it permitted a court to increase a defendant's sentence for

a prior conviction that was not mentioned in the indictment. However, the Court decided not to

revisit Almendarez-Torres and classified recidivism as a "narrow exception" to the general rule

announced in Apprendi. Id. Thus, while Petitioner correctly argues that Apprendi "casts doubt on the

continuing viability of Almendarez-Torres," Almendarez-Torres remains good law "unless and until

[it] is overruled by the Supreme Court." United States v. Pacheco-Zepeda, 234 F.3d 411, 414 (9th

Cir.2000), amended, 2000 WL 33156290 (9th Cir. Feb. 8, 2001), cert. denied, 121 S.Ct. 1503

(2001). Moreover, in this case, Petitioner was charged in the indictment with ten strike priors and it

was the jury which found the strike allegations to be true. Therefore, Petitioner’s claim does not even

call into question the concerns raised in Apprendi.

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be

SUMMARILY DENIED with prejudice. 

This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger, United

States District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 72-304

of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. 

Case 1:07-cv-01710-OWW -GSA Document 6 Filed 12/06/07 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 5

Within thirty (30) days after being served with a copy, any party may file written objections with the

court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” Replies to the objections shall be served and

filed within ten (10) court days (plus three days if served by mail) after service of the objections. 

The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The

parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to

appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: December 5, 2007 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

60kij8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-01710-OWW -GSA Document 6 Filed 12/06/07 Page 5 of 5