Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-05231/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-05231-1/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)

---

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

1

The United States District Court for the Central District of California

transferred this action to this Court as the preferable forum from because petitioner

was convicted and sentenced in the Superior Court of San Mateo County.

Order of Partial Dismissal with Leave to Amend

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\HC.08\Givens05231_dwlta.wpd

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CLIFFORD EUGENE GIVENS,

Petitioner,

 vs.

D. K. SISTO, Warden, 

Respondent.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 08-05231 JW (PR)

ORDER OF PARTIAL DISMISSAL

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his state conviction.1

 The

Court dismissed this action without prejudice for failure to exhaust state court

remedies, and then granted petitioner’s motion for reconsideration and reopened the

matter on April 29, 2010, after petitioner showed that he had exhausted his state

court remedies. 

///

Case 5:08-cv-05231-EJD Document 13 Filed 05/07/10 Page 1 of 7
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

Order of Partial Dismissal with Leave to Amend

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\HC.08\Givens05231_dwlta.wpd 2

BACKGROUND

According to the petition, petitioner pleaded guilty in the Superior Court of

the State of California in and for the County of San Mateo to assault with a deadly

weapon and two prior convictions. (Pet. 2.) Petitioner was sentenced on August 17,

1998, to sixteen years in state prison. (Id.) 

Petitioner filed habeas petitions in the state courts, with the state high court

denying review on June 18, 2008. Petitioner filed the instant federal habeas petition

on November 4, 2008.

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

This court may entertain a petition for a 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). 

It shall “award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show

cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that

the applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto.” Id. § 2243. 

B. Legal Claims

1. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

Petitioner claims that counsel rendered ineffective assistance with respect to

his sentence in violation of the Sixth Amendment. However, the only challenges left

open in federal habeas corpus after a guilty plea is the voluntary and intelligent

character of the plea and the nature of the advice of counsel to plead. Hill v.

Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 56-57 (1985); Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 267

(1973). A defendant who pleads guilty upon the advice of counsel may only attack

the voluntary and intelligent character of the guilty plea by showing that the advice

he received from counsel was not within the range of competence demanded of

Case 5:08-cv-05231-EJD Document 13 Filed 05/07/10 Page 2 of 7
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

Order of Partial Dismissal with Leave to Amend

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\HC.08\Givens05231_dwlta.wpd 3

attorneys in criminal cases. Id.; Lambert v. Blodgett, 393 F.3d 943, 979 (9th Cir.

2004); United States v. Signori, 844 F.2d 635, 638 (9th Cir. 1988); Hudson, 760

F.2d at 1030. Petitioner’s claim is insufficient because he has failed to allege facts

attacking the nature of the advice rendered by counsel with respect to his guilty plea. 

Petitioner shall be granted leave to amend to attempt to allege facts sufficient to

show that the advice he received from counsel with respect to his guilty plea was not

within the acceptable range of competence. 

2. Unlawful Sentence Under Cunningham

Petitioner also alleges that his sentence is unconstitutional because the

circumstances in aggravation were found by the judge and not presented to a jury to

be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in violation of Cunningham v. California, 549

U.S. 270 (2007). 

The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees a criminal

defendant the right to a trial by jury. U.S. Const. amend. VI. This right to a jury

trial has been made applicable to state criminal proceedings via the Fourteenth

Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 149-50

(1968). The Supreme Court’s Sixth Amendment jurisprudence was significantly

expanded by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), and its progeny, which

extended a defendant’s right to trial by jury to the fact finding used to make

enhanced sentencing determinations as well as the actual elements of the crime. 

“Other than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a

crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and

proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. at 488-90 ( 2000). The “statutory

maximum” for Apprendi purposes is the maximum sentence a judge could impose

based solely on the facts reflected in the jury verdict or admitted by the defendant;

that is, the relevant “statutory maximum” is not the sentence the judge could impose

after finding additional facts, but rather is the maximum he or she could impose

without any additional findings. Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 303- 04 

Case 5:08-cv-05231-EJD Document 13 Filed 05/07/10 Page 3 of 7
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

Order of Partial Dismissal with Leave to Amend

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\HC.08\Givens05231_dwlta.wpd 4

(2004). The Court reaffirmed this basic principle when it determined that the federal

sentencing guidelines violated the Sixth Amendment because they imposed

mandatory sentencing ranges based on factual findings made by the sentencing

court. See United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 233-38 (2005). The sentencing

guidelines were unconstitutional because they required the court to impose an

enhanced sentence based on factual determinations not made by the jury beyond a

reasonable doubt. Id. at 243- 245. In Cunningham, the Court held that California’s

determinate sentencing law (“DSL”) violated the Sixth Amendment because it

allowed the sentencing court to impose an elevated sentence based on aggravating

facts that it found to exist by a preponderance of the evidence. 549 U.S. at 288-89. 

In Teague v. Lane, the Supreme Court held that a federal court may not grant

habeas corpus relief to a prisoner based on a constitutional rule of criminal

procedure announced after his conviction and sentence became final unless the rule

fits within one of two narrow exceptions. Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 310-316

(1989). Petitioner had sixty days to file a direct appeal, see Cal. Rule of Court

8.308(a) (formerly Cal. Rule of Court 31), and another ninety days thereafter to seek

a writ of certiorari from the United States Supreme Court, see Supreme Court Rule

13. According to the petition, petitioner did not seek a direct appeal or a petition for

a writ of certiorari from the United States Supreme Court. (Pet. at 2.) Therefore,

petitioner’s conviction became final 120 days after he was sentenced on April 20,

1998, i.e., in September 1998.

Neither Blakely or Cunningham were decided before petitioner’s conviction

became final in 1998. The Supreme Court has not made Blakely retroactive to cases

on collateral review of convictions that became final before Blakely was decided. 

Schardt v. Payne, 414 F.3d 1025, 1036 (9th Cir. 2005). In Schardt, the petitioner’s

conviction became final on December 22, 2000, after Apprendi was decided on June

26, 2000, but before Blakely was announced on June 24, 2004. Id. at 1034. The

Ninth Circuit found that although petitioner’s sentence violated the Sixth

Case 5:08-cv-05231-EJD Document 13 Filed 05/07/10 Page 4 of 7
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

Order of Partial Dismissal with Leave to Amend

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\HC.08\Givens05231_dwlta.wpd 5

Amendment’s right to a jury under Blakely, habeas relief was not available because

the Blakely decision announced a “new rule” that does not apply retroactively to

cases on collateral review. Id. (citing Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 301 (1989)). 

Similarly, petitioner’s conviction became final in 2002, which is two years before

Blakely was decided. Thus, as in Schardt, petitioner is not entitled to relief on this

claim because the rule in Blakely does not apply retroactively to this case. 

Cunningham, which was essentially a California-specific application of Blakely,

also has not been made retroactive to cases on collateral review before Blakely was

decided. Cf. Butler v. Curry, 528 F.3d 624, 633-35, 639 (9th Cir. 2008) (application

of Cunningham to petitioner whose conviction became final after Blakely was not

barred by Teague). 

Here, petitioner’s conviction became final before Blakely and Cunningham

were decided. Teague prevents the retroactive application of those cases to

petitioner’s claim. Accordingly, the claim challenging his sentence under

Cunningham is DISMISSED with prejudice. 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, 

1. The petition is DISMISSED with leave to amend to attempt to allege a 

claim of ineffective assistance by counsel as discussed above. The claim attacking

his sentence under Cunningham is DISMISSED with prejudice. 

Petitioner must, within thirty (30) days of the date this order is filed, file an

amended petition. The amended petition must include the caption and civil case

number used in this order, No. C 08-05231 JW (PR), and must include the words

AMENDED PETITION on the first page. 

Failure to file a timely response in accordance with this order will result

in the dismissal of this action without prejudice and without further notice to

petitioner.

Case 5:08-cv-05231-EJD Document 13 Filed 05/07/10 Page 5 of 7
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

Order of Partial Dismissal with Leave to Amend

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\HC.08\Givens05231_dwlta.wpd 6

The Clerk shall include two copies of the court’s form petition with a copy of

this order to petitioner. 

DATED: 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge 

May 5, 2010 

Case 5:08-cv-05231-EJD Document 13 Filed 05/07/10 Page 6 of 7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CLIFFORD EUGENE GIVENS,

Petitioner,

 v.

D K SISTO, Warden,

Respondent. /

Case Number: CV08-05231 JW 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District

Court, Northern District of California.

That on , I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the

attached, by placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s)

hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into

an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Clifford Eugene Givens P-09900

California State Prison - Solano

P. O. Box 4000

Vacaville, Ca 95696-4000

Dated: 

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Elizabeth Garcia, Deputy Clerk

5/7/2010 5/7/2010 /s/

Case 5:08-cv-05231-EJD Document 13 Filed 05/07/10 Page 7 of 7