Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01695/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01695-0/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

05cv1695

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HENRY ZIMMETH,

Petitioner,

v.

ROBERT J. HERNANDEZ, Warden,

Respondent.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 05CV1695 JAH(RBB)

ORDER OVERRULING

PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS;

ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE

JUDGE’S REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION; DENYING

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS

CORPUS; AND DENYING

PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR

PROMPT DISPOSITION OF

PETITION AND RENEWED

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF

COUNSEL AS MOOT

INTRODUCTION

Petitioner, a state prisoner appearing pro se, has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging the sentence imposed upon him after his conviction

in state court. Petitioner has also filed a motion seeking a prompt disposition of the instant

petition and a renewed motion for appointment of counsel. The Honorable Ruben B. Brooks,

United States Magistrate Judge has issued a report and recommendation (“report”) pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), recommending that the petition be denied and the motions be denied

as moot. Petitioner filed objections to the report. After a careful consideration of the pleadings

and relevant exhibits presented by the parties, and for the reasons set forth below, this Court

OVERRULES petitioner’s objections, ADOPTS the magistrate judge’s recommendation,

DENIES the petition, and DENIES petitioner’s motion for prompt disposition of petition and

Case 3:05-cv-01695-JAH-RBB Document 32 Filed 09/04/07 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 05cv1695

renewed motion for appointment of counsel as moot.

BACKGROUND

Petitioner was convicted, after a jury trial, on four counts: assault with a deadly weapon,

reckless driving to evade an officer, battery on a person with whom he had a dating relationship,

and resisting an officer. In a bifurcated hearing, the trial court found allegations of a prior strike

and two prior prison terms true and imposed an upper-term sentence of three years for the

reckless driving offense, doubled based on the prior strike, and an additional one-year

enhancement for one of the prior prison terms. Sentencing on the second prison prior was 

stayed. The trial court also sentenced petitioner to 151 days for each remaining count to run

concurrently with the sentences on the other counts, with credit for time served. 

Petitioner appealed his sentence on direct appeal as well as collaterally through all levels

of the California courts. The instant petition was filed on August 29, 2005, alleging one claim

which was construed as three separate claims. This Court subsequently dismissed two of those

three claims as unexhausted. Respondent filed an answer to the remaining claim August 1,

2006 and petitioner filed a traverse on August 29, 2006. The magistrate judge’s report was

issued on March 23, 2007. Petitioner filed his objections to the report on May 8, 2007. No

reply to petitioner’s objections have been filed.

DISCUSSION

1. Legal Standard

The district court’s role in reviewing a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation is

set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Under this statute, the district court “shall make a de novo

determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made,” and “may accept,

reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate

[judge].” Id. It is well settled, under Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that

a district court may adopt those parts of a Magistrate Judge’s report to which no specific

objection is made, provided they are not clearly erroneous. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 153

(1985). 

//

Case 3:05-cv-01695-JAH-RBB Document 32 Filed 09/04/07 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 05cv1695

2. Analysis

Petitioner’s sole remaining claim in the instant petition alleges that the trial court

imposed the upper-term sentence without specific fact finding by a jury. See Pet. at 2; Trav. at

3, 6; Report at 8-9. The magistrate judge, in the report, discussed the series of United States

Supreme Court cases which analyzed the limits of a defendants’ rights to a trial by jury of facts

affecting sentencing. See Report at 10-15. Based on the case authority presented, the

magistrate judge determined that the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Cunningham

v. California, 127 S.Ct. 856 (2007) (finding California’s determinate sentencing laws violate

a defendant’s Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to trial by jury as interpreted in Blakely

v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004), and Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000)), does

not apply retroactively to petitioner and, therefore, the trial court’s imposition of the upperterm sentence under Blakely and Apprendi was not contrary to, nor an unreasonable application

of, clearly established United States Supreme Court law. See Report at 12-18; Williams v.

Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 412 (2000). In making that determination, the magistrate judge found

that “Cunningham is not ‘a watershed rule of criminal procedure’ because it does not implicate

the fundamental fairness of a criminal trial.” Id. at 14 (Schardt v. Payne, 414 F.3d 1025, 1036

(9th Cir. 2005)). Absent a violation based on Cunningham, the magistrate judge found that

petitioner’s sentence was proper under Blakely and Apprendi. Id. at 15-18. 

Petitioner sole objection to the report is directed to the magistrate judge’s finding that

Cunningham does not apply retroactively. See Obj. at 2. However, petitioner does not point

to a specific finding or conclusion by the magistrate judge as erroneous but, instead, presents

a general objection to the magistrate judge’s legal analysis. See id. Petitioner contends, contrary

to the magistrate judge’s findings and conclusions, that the case law cited requires a

determination that Cunningham be applied retroactively to petitioner’s case. Id. Petitioner

presents no argument or authority to support his contention. This Court disagrees with

petitioner and finds, based on a careful review of the case authority cited, that the magistrate

judge’s analysis of the law in this area is well-reasoned. Therefore, this Court finds the

magistrate judge’s determination that Cunningham does not retroactively apply here is correct.

Case 3:05-cv-01695-JAH-RBB Document 32 Filed 09/04/07 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 05cv1695

Accordingly, petitioner’s sole objection to the report is OVERRULED. Because the claim

presented in the instant petition has now been addressed, this Court also agrees with the

magistrate judge’s recommendation that petitioner’s motion for a prompt disposition of the

petition and renewed motion for appointment of counsel be denied as moot.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings, conclusions and recommendations presented in the magistrate

judge’s report and recommendation are ADOPTED in toto;

2. The instant petition is DENIED in its entirety;

3. Petitioner’s motion for prompt disposition of the petition and renewed motion for

appointment of counsel are DENIED as moot.

Dated: September 4, 2007

HON. JOHN A. HOUSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-01695-JAH-RBB Document 32 Filed 09/04/07 Page 4 of 4