Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-00759/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-00759-0/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- 05cv0759

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM ALBERT HYNSON,

Petitioner,

Civil No. 05cv0759-BTM (WMc)

ORDER:

(1) ADOPTING IN PART THE

FINDINGS OF UNITED STATES

MAGISTRATE JUDGE; 

(2) DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT

OF HABEAS CORPUS; AND

(3) DECLINING TO ISSUE A

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

vs.

PRUNTY, Warden,

Respondent.

Petitioner is a California prisoner proceeding pro se with a Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner claims that the application of California’s Three

Strikes law to enhance his sentence resulted in a violation of his federal constitutional rights

because that statute is vague and failed to give him adequate notice of the conduct it prescribes

and the punishment it imposes (claim one), and because it violates ex post facto principles (claim

two); and that his trial and appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to raise

those issues in the trial and appellate courts (claim three).

Presently before the Court is a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) submitted by

United States Magistrate Judge William McCurine, Jr., which recommends the Petition be

denied. (Doc. No. 14.) The Magistrate Judge found that Petitioner’s claims were procedurally

defaulted, and that Petitioner had failed to establish cause and prejudice to excuse the default or

Case 3:05-cv-00759-BTM-WMC Document 17 Filed 12/13/06 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- 05cv0759

show that a fundamental miscarriage of justice would result from the failure of this Court to

reach the merits of his claims. (R&R at 6-25.) Alternately, the Magistrate Judge found that an

independent review of the record revealed that the state court’s denial of the claims was neither

contrary to, nor involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, for the

same reasons Petitioner had failed to show prejudice resulting from the procedural default,

namely, because the claims were without merit. (Id. at 25.)

No party has filed objections to the R&R. The Court has reviewed the R&R pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), which provides that: “A judge of the court shall make a de novo

determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations

to which objection is made. A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in

part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)

(West Supp. 2006). The Court has reviewed the R&R under this standard and for the following

reasons adopts in part the findings of the Magistrate Judge, denies habeas relief, and declines to

issue a Certificate of Appealability.

I. Procedural Default

The claims presented in this Court were presented to the state court for the first and only

time in a habeas petition filed in the state supreme court, which was denied by an order which

stated in full: “Petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied as successive (see In re Clark (1993)

5 Cal.4th 750), and on the merits.” (R&R at 4.) The Magistrate Judge correctly found that the

fact that the state court reached the merits of the claim in the alternate to imposing the procedural

bar of successiveness did not preclude a finding of procedural default in this Court, provided the

citation to Clark represented an independent and adequate procedural bar. (R&R at 7.) The

Court declines to adopt the finding that the procedural bar imposed by the state court here is

independent of federal law. As the Magistrate Judge noted, the fourth exception under state law

to imposition of the Clark bar is in issue here, as Petitioner has alleged that a fundamental

miscarriage of justice occurred because he was convicted under an invalid statute. (R&R at 10.)

However, the determination whether California’s Three Strikes law is invalid because, as

Petitioner claims, it violates federal ex post facto principles, is necessarily intertwined with

Case 3:05-cv-00759-BTM-WMC Document 17 Filed 12/13/06 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- 05cv0759

federal law, a point recognized in the R&R when it applied federal law to determine that the

Three Strikes law did not violate ex post facto principles. (R&R at 10-11, citing Bennett v.

Mueller, 322 F.3d 573, 582 n.1 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding that the first three Clark exceptions are

independent of federal law but reserving the issue with respect to the fourth exception).)

Because the citation to Clark here did not represent the imposition of an independent procedural

bar, Petitioner’s claims are not procedurally defaulted. Id. at 581.

II. The Merits

The Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s finding that an independent review of the record

reveals that Petitioner’s claims are without merit for the reasons set forth in the “Prejudice”

section of the R&R. (See R&R at 15-24.) As the R&R correctly noted, the challenges to

California’s Three Strikes law presented here were well settled adversely to Petitioner at the time

of his trial. (Id.) The failure of his trial and appellate counsel to challenge the use of the prior

conviction to enhance Petitioner’s sentence on the basis that California’s Three Strikes law was

unconstitutional, therefore neither rose to the level of deficient performance nor prejudiced

Petitioner. Even to the extent Petitioner contends he was misinformed when he pled guilty to

the prior conviction that it could only be used to enhance his sentence by five years (see

Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Petition at 5, 15-16), his sentence was

enhanced less than five years as a result of the prior conviction. (R&R at 3.) 

Therefore, the Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s finding that an independent review

of the record reveals that the state supreme court’s denial of the claims “on the merits” was

neither contrary to, nor involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law

within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). The Court declines to issue a Certificate of

Appealability with respect to any of the claims presented in the Petition. See Lambright v.

Stewart, 220 F.3d 1022, 1024-25 (9th Cir. 2000) (providing that threshold “substantial showing

of the denial of a constitutional right,” is met by demonstrating that: (1) the issues are debatable

among jurists of reason; or (2) that a court could resolve the issues in a different manner; or (3)

that the questions are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further).

/ / /

Case 3:05-cv-00759-BTM-WMC Document 17 Filed 12/13/06 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- 05cv0759

III. Conclusion and Order

Based on the foregoing, the Court:

(1) ADOPTS in part the Magistrate Judge’s findings and conclusions as set forth above;

(2) DENIES the Petition for writ of habeas corpus; and (3) DECLINES to issue Certificate of

Appealability as to any claim encompassed in the Petition.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 13, 2006

Hon. Barry Ted Moskowitz

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-00759-BTM-WMC Document 17 Filed 12/13/06 Page 4 of 4