Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-04001/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-04001-0/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)

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

NOT FOR CITATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JERMAIN REED,

Petitioner,

 vs.

S. W. ORNSKI, Warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 05-4001 PJH (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

This is a habeas case filed pro se by a state prisoner. The original petition was

dismissed with leave to amend because it was not possible to discern what issue or issues

petitioner wished to raise. Petitioner then filed an amendment which was no better. He

was given a final chance to amend, and has done so.

It is apparent from the amendment that petitioner contends his sentence was

enhanced improperly because of facts about a prior conviction which were not found by a

jury, a procedure which he contends violates Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 488-

90 (2000) ("[o]ther 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."), and Shepard v. United States, 125 S. Ct. 1254, 1263 (2005)

(under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), courts examining prior conviction on plea of

guilty for purposes of determining whether it was predicate offense limited to “the charging

document, the terms of the charging document, the terms of a plea agreement or transcript

of colloquy between judge and defendant in which the factual basis for the plea was

confirmed by the defendant, or to some comparable judicial record of this information.”). It

appears his contention is that the sentencing court had to look at more than the evidence

Case 4:05-cv-04001-PJH Document 13 Filed 03/16/06 Page 1 of 2
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

2

permitted under Shepard in determining that his prior offense was a “violent” one. Even

assuming for the sake of this decision that Shepard announced a constitutional rule that

would apply in state courts, petitioner cannot obtain relief on this claim.

Apprendi announced a new constitutional rule of criminal procedure that does not

apply retroactively on initial collateral review. United States v. Sanchez-Cervantes, 

282 F.3d 664, 665 (9th Cir. 2002). Petitioner’s claim is that, applying Shepard, his

sentence enhancement did not properly come within the Apprendi exception for prior

convictions, so application of the enhancement to him violated his constitutional rights as

defined in Apprendi. But because Apprendi does not apply in collateral actions such as this

one, he cannot obtain federal habeas relief on this, his only ground. 

A habeas petition may be dismissed summarily "[i]f it plainly appears from the face

of the petition and any exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the

district court. . . ." Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases; Hendricks v. Vasquez,

908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990). The petition is DISMISSED pursuant to Rule 4. The

clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 15, 2006.

 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\PJH\HC.05\REED001.DSM

Case 4:05-cv-04001-PJH Document 13 Filed 03/16/06 Page 2 of 2