Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02725/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02725-1/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

James Edward Gilmore, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Franco, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-06-2725-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254 (doc. 1), Respondents’ answer (doc. 10), and the Report and Recommendation

of the United States Magistrate Judge (doc. 11). No objection to the Report and

Recommendation was filed. 

The court accepts the recommended decision of the United States Magistrate Judge

pursuant to Rule 8(b), Rules Governing § 2254 Cases. We note a typographical error in the

Magistrate Judge’s order, which states, “the trial court did violate Petitioner’s Sixth

Amendment rights when it enhanced Petitioner’s sentence based on the prior conviction that

he admitted in his plea agreement.” R & R at 7. Based on the consistent analysis in the

Report and Recommendation in recommending the denial of the habeas petition, including

the Magistrate Judge’s correct conclusion that the “[u]se of a prior felony conviction as an

Case 2:06-cv-02725-FJM Document 12 Filed 08/08/07 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

- 2 -

aggravating factor is permissible under Blakely,” id., it is clear that the sentence was intended

to read, “the trial court did [not] violate Petitioner’s Sixth Amendment rights.” 

Therefore, IT IS ORDERED DENYING the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

(doc. 1). 

DATED this 7th day of August, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-02725-FJM Document 12 Filed 08/08/07 Page 2 of 2