Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00653/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00653-0/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 - 07cv653

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DOUGLAS LUCKY,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 07cv653-IEG(NLS)

Order Adopting Report and

Recommendation; Dismissing

Petitioner’s Claim for Relief based

upon Cunningham; Requiring

Response to Petition

vs.

D.K. SISTO, Warden,

Defendant.

Petitioner Douglas Lucky, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for a writ

of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his November 18, 2004 conviction and

sentence in San Diego County Superior Court Case No. SCD18336. Respondent moves to dismiss

the petition as containing an unexhausted claim. Petitioner has filed a response. On November 13,

2007, Magistrate Judge Nita L. Stormes filed a Report & Recommendation recommending that the

motion to dismiss be denied as moot. No party has filed any objection.

The Petition formally designates only two claims for relief: (1) the trial court erred in

failing to instruct the jury according to CALJIC 2.02, and (2) appellate counsel was

constitutionally ineffective because he failed to argue on direct appeal that trial counsel coerced

Petitioner to admit certain prison priors considered in sentencing. At the end of his argument

regarding his claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, Petitioner states as follows:

Further the United States Supreme Court’s recent decision in Cunningham v.

Case 3:07-cv-00653-IEG-NLS Document 16 Filed 01/08/08 Page 1 of 2
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

Cunningham v. California, ___ U.S. ___, 127 S. Ct. 856 (2007).

2

The Supreme Court in Cunningham held that California’s determinate sentencing law,

which authorized judge, not jury, to find facts exposing defendant to a higher term, violated

defendant’s right to trial by jury. It is not apparent from the Petition how Cunningham applies to

this case.

- 2 - 07cv653

California1, . . . is intervening and is controlling in regard to the trial court’s finding

upon the sentence without a jury making those findings in this case. Id. This case

deserves reversal.

[Petition, p. 5 of 10 “D”, lines 20-25.] Respondent argues this “Third Claim for Relief” is

unexhausted because Petitioner has never raised such claim before the California Supreme Court.

In his August 30, 2007 opposition to the motion to dismiss, Petitioner asks the court “to

grant him the right to ‘Forfeit’ the unexhausted Cunningham claim and proceed with the exhausted

habeas claim[s] now before the court.” The Court hereby ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Stormes’

Report and Recommendation, and DISMISSES Petitioner’s claim based upon Cunningham.

2

Based thereon, the Court hereby orders Respondent to file and serve an answer to the

Petition, and a memorandum of points and authorities in support of such answer, pursuant to Rule

5 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, no later than February 18, 2008. At the time the answer

is filed, Respondent shall lodge with the Court all records bearing on the merits of Petitioner’s

claims. Petitioner may file a traverse to matters raised in the answer no later than March 17,

2008. Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, this case shall be deemed submitted on the day

following the date Petitioner’s traverse is due.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 8, 2008

IRMA E. GONZALEZ, Chief Judge

United States District Court

Case 3:07-cv-00653-IEG-NLS Document 16 Filed 01/08/08 Page 2 of 2