Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-06385/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-06385-0/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)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DARCEL STONER,

Petitioner,

 vs.

J. HARTLEY, Warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 07-6385 PJH (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

This is a habeas case filed pro se by a state prisoner. Petitioner claimed in the

original petition that his sentence violated his Sixth Amendment rights as established in

Cunningham v. California, 127 S. Ct. 856 (2007), Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296

(2004), and Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), but because he did not provide

any facts about what happened at sentencing, the petition was dismissed with leave to

amend. Petitioner has amended. 

In his amendment, petitioner says that on April 4, 2000, he pled guilty, pursuant to a

plea bargain, to attempted murder with a gun enhancement. He says that he was

sentenced to the upper term on the attempted murder charge. In Cunningham, the

Supreme Court held that California’s Determinate Sentencing Law violates a defendant’s

right to a jury trial to the extent that it contravenes “Apprendi’s bright-line rule: Except for a

prior conviction, ‘any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the statutory

maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proven beyond a reasonable doubt.’” Id.

(quoting Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 490). When a case involves a plea bargain, as here,

ordinarily there would be an issue whether there was a waiver, but in this case the sole

claim in the petition is barred on another ground.

Case 4:07-cv-06385-PJH Document 8 Filed 04/16/10 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Cunningham applies retroactively on collateral review only to convictions that

became final on direct review after the decision in Blakely, which was on June 24, 2004. 

Butler v. Curry, 528 F.3d 624, 639 (9th Cir. 2008). The conviction in this case was in 2000,

and petitioner says that he did not appeal. Pet. at 3. That is confirmed by a review of the

California appellate courts’ website. Petitioner’s conviction thus became final in 2000, well

before the 2004 decision in Blakely, and the Apprendi/Blakely/Cunningham line of cases

does not apply to him. The petition will be dismissed. See Calderon v. United States Dist.

Court (Nicolaus), 98 F.3d 1102, 1108 (9th Cir. 1996) (“Habeas petitions which appear on

their face to be legally insufficient are subject to summary dismissal.”) (Schroeder, J.,

concurring). 

CONCLUSION 

The petition is DISMISSED. The clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 16, 2010. 

 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

P:\PRO-SE\PJH\HC.07\STONER6385.DSM.wpd 

Case 4:07-cv-06385-PJH Document 8 Filed 04/16/10 Page 2 of 2