Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00527/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00527-1/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)

---

,r'," 

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 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ANGELO PAUL PAMINTUAN, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

JEFFREY BEARD, Secretary, 

Respondent. 

Case No.: 15-cv-527-BEN (DRB) 

ORDER: 

(1) ADOPTING REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION 

(2) GRANTING MOTION TO 

DISMISS 

(3) DISMISSING PETITION 

(4) DENYING CERTIFICATE OF 

APPEALABILITY 

Petitioner Angelo Paul Pamintuan, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a 

petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On June 16,2015, 

Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the First Amended Petition (Docket No.6) as time 

barred by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). (Docket No.9.) Petitioner filed an Opposition. (Docket 

No. 13.) 

On November 23, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued a thorough and thoughtful 

Report and Recommendation, recommending the Petition be dismissed. (Docket No. 14.) 

Petition timely filed Objections to the Report. (Docket No. 15.) For the reasons stated 

below, the Report is ADOPTED, Respondent's Motion is GRANTED, and the Petition 

1 

15cv527 

Case 3:15-cv-00527-BEN-DHB Document 16 Filed 01/11/16 Page 1 of 4
{, I' 

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 

is DISMISSED. 

BACKGROUND 

Petitioner pled no contest to assault with a deadly weapon which resulted in great 

bodily injury in violation of California Penal Code § 245(a)(I). (Docket No. 10, Lodg. 

1.) He also admitted to having a prior strike. (Id.) On December 1,2010, the trial court 

sentenced Petitioner to thirteen years in prison, in accordance with the tenns of his plea 

agreement. (Docket No. 10, Lodg. 3 at 1.) Petitioner did not appeal. 

On July 7, 2014, Petitioner filed, in California superior court, a motion for 

reduction of sentence pursuant to California Penal Code § 1385. (Docket No.1 0, Lodg. 

2.) On August 13,2014, the superior court infonned Petitioner that it had no jurisdiction 

to modify the sentence pursuant to section 1385. (Lodg.3.) The court also noted that 

even if it had jurisdiction, the motion was untimely. (Id.) 

On September 2,2014, Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in the 

California Court of Appeal, challenging the superior court's denial of his motion under 

section 1385. (Docket No. 10, Lodg. 4.) The California Court of Appeal denied the 

petition without comment. (Lodg.5.) 

Finally, Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus with the California 

Supreme Court on October 6, 2014. (Lodg. 6.) That petition was also summarily denied. 

(Lodg.7.) 

STANDARDS OF REVIEW 

I. Report and Recommendation 

Where a timely objection to a report and recommendation has been filed, the 

district court reviews de novo those portions of the report or specific proposed findings or 

recommendations to which petitioner objected. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b )(1). 

II. Petition for Habeas Corpus 

A petition for habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is governed by the 

Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDP A"). See Lindh v. 

Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 337 (1997). 

2 

15cv527 

Case 3:15-cv-00527-BEN-DHB Document 16 Filed 01/11/16 Page 2 of 4
,\" " 

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 

DISCUSSION 

I. De Novo Review 

Respondent asks this Court to dismiss the Petition as untimely. In his Objection, 

Petitioner argues that the Petition is protected from AEDPA's statute oflimitations by the 

"actual innocence exception." (Obj. at 1.) 

Under AEDP A, a state prisoner must file a federal habeas petition within one year 

of "the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the 

expiration of the time for seeking such review." 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(I)(A). If Petitioner 

raises newly discovered evidence in support of his petition, the statute oflimitations 

begins to run on "the date on which the factual predicate of the claim or claims present 

could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence." § 2244( d)(1 )(D). 

However, actual innocence, "if proved, serves as a gateway through which a petitioner 

may pass whether the impediment is a procedural bar ... or ... expiration of the statute 

oflimitations." McQuiggin v. Perkins, 133 S. Ct. 1924, 1928 (2013). In order to take 

advantage ofthe exception, a petitioner "must show that it is more likely than not that no 

reasonable juror would have convicted him in the light ofthe new evidence." Schlup v. 

Dela, 513 U.S. 298, 327 (1995). 

Here, Petitioner was sentenced on December 1, 2010. Because he did not appeal, 

his judgment became final sixty days after the entry of judgment. See Cal. R. Ct. 8.104. 

As such, Petitioner's judgment became final on January 30,2011. Pursuant to section 

2244( d)(1 )(A), the statute of limitation period to file a federal habeas petition ended on 

January 31, 2012. Petitioner did not file the instant Petition until March 3, 2015-over 

three years later. Petitioner does not argue that the statute oflimitations began to run at a 

later time. Thus, section 2244( d)(1 )(D) does not apply. 

In addition, Petitioner failed to present any evidence in support of his innocence. 

Petitioner does not argue that he did not commit the offense to which he pled no contest. 

Nor, does he argue that he did not commit the underlying prior offense which supports 

the five year enhancement. Instead, he argues that his prior offense is insufficient to 

3 

15cv527 

Case 3:15-cv-00527-BEN-DHB Document 16 Filed 01/11/16 Page 3 of 4
r:'.- • 

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 

justify the five year enhancement. (Obj. at 2-3.) As Petitioner did not present any new 

evidence, he cannot pass through the actual innocence gateway. Therefore, the Petition is 

barred by the statute of limitations. 

II. 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 foIl. 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In this case, the 

Court finds that Petitioner did not make a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right, the issues are not debatable among jurists of reason, and a court 

could not resolve the issues in a different manner. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 

322,327 (2003). This matter is also not adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed 

further. Accordingly, the Court DENIES a certificate of appealability. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation. Respondent's Motion to 

Dismiss is GRANTED, and the Petition is DISMISSED as untimely. The Clerk may 

close the case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January -/L, 2016 

on. . Benitez 

United states District Judge 

4 

15cv527 

Case 3:15-cv-00527-BEN-DHB Document 16 Filed 01/11/16 Page 4 of 4