Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01747/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01747-0/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

06cv1747dms(jma)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GRADY HARRIS,

Petitioner,

v.

R.K. WONG, Warden

Respondent. 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 06-CV-1747-DMS (JMA)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION BY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ON PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR

STAY OF PETITION PENDING

RESOLUTION OF SECOND APPEAL IN

CALIFORNIA APPELLATE COURT

[DOC. NO. 13]

On August 28, 2006, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus setting forth five (5) claims for relief. (Doc.

No. 1.) On December 11, 2006, Petitioner filed a motion for stay

and abeyance styled “Petitioner’s Motion for Stay of Petition

Pending Resolution of Second Appeal in California Appellate

Court.” (Doc. No. 13.) The motion for stay sought an order

staying the Petition in this Court while Petitioner exhausted

state remedies as to an additional claim: that he is entitled to

be re-sentenced because four of the five aggravating factors the

trial court relied on to impose the upper term were improper

Case 3:06-cv-01747-JLS-JMA Document 19 Filed 03/14/07 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

1

The Supreme Court held in Blakely that the Washington state

trial court’s sentencing of defendant to more than three years above

the 53-month statutory maximum of the standard range for his offense,

on the basis of the sentencing judge’s finding that defendant acted

with deliberate cruelty, violated defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to

trial by jury.

2

The Supreme Court held in Cunningham that California’s

determinate sentencing law, which authorized a judge, not a jury, to

find facts exposing a defendant to an elevated upper term sentence,

violated defendant’s right to trial by jury.

3

In the interest of judicial economy, the Court hereby informs

Respondent that it finds Petitioner’s sentencing claim under Blakely

to be sufficiently similar to the newly asserted sentencing claim

under Cunningham that Petitioner has exhausted his available state

court remedies as to both claims.

2 06cv1747dms(jma)

under Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004).1 Respondent

filed an Opposition to Petitioner’s motion for stay on January

26, 2007 (Doc. No. 15), and Petitioner filed a Reply on February

20, 2007 in which he now states “this claim was briefed on appeal

and exhausted in the California Supreme Court.” (Doc. No. 16.)

In addition, on February 12, 2007, Petitioner filed

“Petitioner’s Request for Leave to Add Claim Six in an Amended

Petition [etc.].” (Doc. No. 18.) The Request states “[t]he new

claim, which was adjudicated by the state’s highest court, is now

brought in light of the United States Supreme Court’s decision in

Cunningham v. California [ U.S. , 127 S.Ct. 856 (2007)].2

It now appears to the Court that: (1) Petitioner has exhausted

available state remedies regarding the additional, or sixth,

claim;3

 (2) Petitioner’s motion for stay is moot; and (3)

Petitioner is entitled to receive leave to file an Amended

Petition adding the newly exhausted claim.

Accordingly, the undersigned magistrate judge hereby

recommends that Petitioner’s “Motion for Stay of Petition Pending

Resolution of Second Appeal in California Appellate Court” be

Case 3:06-cv-01747-JLS-JMA Document 19 Filed 03/14/07 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 06cv1747dms(jma)

DENIED AS MOOT and that, after the Court’s final adjudication of

this Report and Recommendation, Petitioner be granted leave to

file an Amended Petition adding the newly exhausted claim. 

This Report and Recommendation is submitted to the Honorable

Dana M. Sabraw, United States District Judge assigned to this

case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

IT IS ORDERED that no later than April 16, 2007, any party

may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on

all parties. The document should be captioned “Objections to

Report and Recommendation.” 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any reply to the objections shall

be served and filed no later than April 30, 2007. The parties

are advised that failure to file objections within the specified

time may waive the right to raise those objections on appeal of

the Court’s order. See Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th

Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 14, 2007

Jan M. Adler

U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-01747-JLS-JMA Document 19 Filed 03/14/07 Page 3 of 3