Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00079/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00079-0/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

-1- 08cv 0079

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TERRY HURN,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 08-CV-0079 W(RBB)

ORDER DENYING APPLICATION

FOR CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY (DOC NO. 16.)

vs.

BEN CURRY, Warden,

Respondent.

On January 14, 2008, Petitioner Terry Hurn, a state prisoner proceeding pro se,

filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

(Doc. No. 1.) On March 17, 2008, Petitioner filed an Amended Petition. (Doc. No.

5.) The Amended Petition challenges Petitioner’s sentence as a breach of the terms of

his plea agreement in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause.

(Am. Pet. 6.) 

 On June 23, 2008, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Petition

as time barred under the applicable statute of limitations. On July 23, 2008, Petitioner

filed an opposition. On September 17, 2008, Magistrate Judge Ruben B. Brooks issued

a Report and Recommendation (“Report”) recommending that the Court grant

Respondent’s motion and ordering objections to be filed by October 15, 2008. (Doc.

Case 3:08-cv-00079-W-RBB Document 17 Filed 01/21/09 Page 1 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

-2- 08cv 0079

No. 13.) Petitioner failed to file any objections. On November 14, 2008, the Court

denied the Amended Petition. (Doc. No. 14.)

Now pending before the Court is Petitioner’s Application for Certificate of

Appealability (“COA”). (Doc. No. 16.) The Court decides the matter on the papers

submitted and without oral argument. See S.D. Cal. Civ. R. 7.1.(d.1). For the reasons

discussed below, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s COA. 

I. BACKGROUND

In July 1995, Petitioner was charged with residential burglary. (Report at 2.)

Petitioner’s first trial ended in a mistrial. (Id.) A jury convicted Petitioner in the second

trial of first-degree residential burglary. (Id.) Because Petitioner admitted to having two

prison priors, two serious felony priors, and two violent felony priors, he was sentenced

under the three strikes law to twenty-five years to life, with two additional five-year

terms for the priors to run consecutively, for a total term of thirty-five years to life (Id.)

Petitioner appealed and the court of appeal remanded the case for resentencing. (Id. at

3.) The trial court reaffirmed the sentence of thirty-five years to life. (Id.)

Almost nine years later, on June 13, 2006, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of

habeas corpus in the San Diego Superior Court asserting that the trial court breached

the terms of a plea agreement he entered in 1990. (Report at 3.) On August 10, 2006,

the court denied the petition. (Id.) On September 1, 2006, Petitioner filed a habeas

petition in the California Court of Appeal, which was also denied. (Id. at 3-4.) On

December 21, 2006, Petitioner filed a habeas petition in the California Supreme Court.

(Id.) The California Supreme Court denied the petition on June 13, 2007. (Id.)

On January 14, 2008, Petitioner commenced this action. (Doc. No. 1.) After the

original Petition was dismissed for failure to pay the filing fee, Petitioner filed the

Amended Petition on March 17, 2008. (Doc. No. 5.) On November 14, 2008, this

Court denied the Amended Petition. (Doc. No. 14.) Petitioner’s COA followed.

Case 3:08-cv-00079-W-RBB Document 17 Filed 01/21/09 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

-3- 08cv 0079

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No.

104-132, 110 Stat. 1214 (1996) (“AEDPA”), a state prisoner may not appeal the denial

of a section 2254 habeas petition unless he obtains a COA from a district or circuit

judge. 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (c)(1)(A); see also United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268,

1269-70 (9th Cir. 1997) (holding that district courts retain authority to issue COAs

under the AEDPA).

In deciding whether to grant a COA, a court must either indicate the specific

issues supporting a certificate or state reasons why a certificate is not warranted. Asrar,

116 F.3d at 1270. A court may issue a COA only if the applicant has made a

“substantial showing” of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).

The Supreme Court has elaborated on the meaning of this requirement:

Where a district court has rejected the constitutional claims on the merits,

the showing required to satisfy section 2253(c) is straightforward: The

petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s

assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (emphasis added).

III. DISCUSSION

The limitations period for habeas corpus petitions under AEDPA is one year. 28

U.S.C. § 2244(d). Here, Magistrate Judge Brooks found that Petitioner filed his state

habeas petition almost nine years after his conviction became final. In failing to object

to the Report, Petitioner waived the right to challenge this factual finding by Magistrate

Judge Brooks. Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991); Gonzalez v.

Sullivan, 914 F.2d 1197, 1200 (9th Cir. 1991). 

Because Petitioner’s state habeas petition was filed nearly nine years after his

conviction became final, the Court concludes that reasonable jurists would not find the

decision that the Amended Petition is time barred debatable or wrong. Nor would

Case 3:08-cv-00079-W-RBB Document 17 Filed 01/21/09 Page 3 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

-4- 08cv 0079

reasonable jurists find that the decision that tolling does not apply is debatable or wrong.

For these reasons, the COA is denied.

IV. CONCLUSION

Petitioner’s Amended Petition did not raise any novel questions of law that were

close calls or issues on which reasonable jurists could disagree. For the foregoing

reasons, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s COA (Doc. No. 16).

IT IS SO ORDERED

DATED: January 21, 2009

Hon. Thomas J. Whelan

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-00079-W-RBB Document 17 Filed 01/21/09 Page 4 of 4