Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00088/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00088-2/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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT BEED, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

)

v. )

)

)

)

B. CURRY, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:08-CV-00088 AWI GSA HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION

[Doc. #5]

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT

OF HABEAS CORPUS

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT

TO ENTER JUDGMENT

ORDER DECLINING TO ISSUE

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On February 8, 2008, the Magistrate Judge issued a Findings and Recommendation that

recommended the petition be SUMMARILY DENIED with prejudice. The Magistrate Judge further

recommended that the Clerk of Court be DIRECTED to enter judgment. The Findings and

Recommendation was served on all parties and contained notice that any objections were to be filed

within thirty (30) days of the date of service of the order. 

On April 1, 2008, Petitioner filed objections to the Findings and Recommendation. In

Case 1:08-cv-00088-AWI-GSA Document 10 Filed 04/16/08 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 2

accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de novo

review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file and having considered the objections,

the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation is supported by the

record and proper analysis, and there is no need to modify the Findings and Recommendations based

on the points raised in the objections. Petitioner’s primary argument in the objections is that the trial

judge erred by making findings of fact when construing his prior conviction as a serious felony for

three-strikes purposes. Petitioner claims this finding should have been left to the jury. In

Almendarez-Torrez v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 243-247 (1998), the Supreme Court held that a

prior conviction used as a sentencing enhancement is not subject to the requirement that a jury find it

true beyond a reasonable doubt. When determining whether an earlier conviction qualifies as a

serious felony under the three-strikes law, the trial court engages in only statutory interpretation, not

judicial factfinding, and "[s]uch analysis raises no Sixth Amendment issue." James v. United States,

--- U.S. ----, 127 S.Ct. 1586, 1600(2007). Accordingly, the objections present no basis to not adopt

the Findings and Recommendation.

A state prisoner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a

district court’s denial of his petition, and an appeal is only allowed in certain circumstances. MillerEl v. Cockrell, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 1039 (2003). The controlling statute in determining whether to issue

a certificate of appealability is 28 U.S.C. § 2253, which provides as follows:

 (a) In a habeas corpus proceeding or a proceeding under section 2255 before a 

district judge, the final order shall be subject to review, on appeal, by the court

of appeals for the circuit in which the proceeding is held.

 (b) There shall be no right of appeal from a final order in a proceeding to test the 

validity of a warrant to remove to another district or place for commitment or trial 

a person charged with a criminal offense against the United States, or to test the 

validity of such person’s detention pending removal proceedings.

 (c) (1) Unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability, an 

appeal may not be taken to the court of appeals from–

 (A) the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the 

detention complained of arises out of process issued by a State 

court; or

 (B) the final order in a proceeding under section 2255.

 (2) A certificate of appealability may issue under paragraph (1) only if the 

Case 1:08-cv-00088-AWI-GSA Document 10 Filed 04/16/08 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 3

applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

 (3) The certificate of appealability under paragraph (1) shall indicate which 

specific issue or issues satisfy the showing required by paragraph (2).

If a court denies a petitioner’s petition, the court may only issue a certificate of appealability

“if jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s resolution of his constitutional claims or

that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed

further.” Miller-El, 123 S.Ct. at 1034; Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). While the

petitioner is not required to prove the merits of his case, he must demonstrate “something more than

the absence of frivolity or the existence of mere good faith on his . . . part.” Miller-El, 123 S.Ct. at

1040.

In the present case, the Court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s

determination that Petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas corpus relief debatable, wrong, or

deserving of encouragement to proceed further. Petitioner has not made the required substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Accordingly, the Court hereby DECLINES to issue a

certificate of appealability.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation issued February 8, 2008, is ADOPTED IN FULL; 

2. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is SUMMARILY DENIED with prejudice; 

3. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment; and

4. The Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 16, 2008 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:08-cv-00088-AWI-GSA Document 10 Filed 04/16/08 Page 3 of 3