Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01139/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01139-2/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

1 06cv1139

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARK DARULIS, Civil No. 06cv1139 L (CAB)

Petitioner,

ORDER REQUIRING SUPPLEMENTAL

v. BRIEFING FROM RESPONDENT

VINCENT J. IARIA,

Respondent.

Petitioner Mark Darulis, proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner raised the following grounds for relief: (1) his Sixth Amendment right to

effective assistance of counsel was violated when his assigned public defender allegedly failed to call a

forensic toxicologist to testify Petitioner’s blood alcohol level was within the legal limits at the time he

was driving his vehicle; (2) his Sixth Amendment rights and his Fourteenth Amendment right to due

process were denied when the trial court did not grant him, while he was proceeding in pro per, a

continuance of the trial date to allow him to borrow money to hire an attorney of his own choice; and (3)

his guilty plea was made under duress because the denial of his request for a continuance forced him to

plead guilty instead of proceeding in a trial for which he was not prepared. Respondent answered, [Doc.

No. 7], and Petitioner filed a traverse, [Doc. No. 11]. 

On February 29, 2008, this Court issued a Report and Recommendation, in which it

recommended the Petition be denied in its entirety. [Doc. No. 13.] On April 2, 2008, Petitioner objected

to the Report and Recommendation. [Doc. No. 14.] In his objections, Petitioner argued for the first time

Case 3:06-cv-01139-L-CAB Document 16 Filed 08/27/08 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

2 06cv1139

at the federal level that the trial court never conducted a colloquy regarding his guilty plea. [Doc. No. 14

at 3.] Petitioner also suggested the trial court altered his plea form by adding facts after Petitioner had

already signed and initialed the form. [Doc. No. 14 at 4.] Respondent did not reply to Petitioner’s

objections. On August 26, 2008, the Honorable M. James Lorenz issued an order adopting the Report

and Recommendation as to Grounds One and Two, and remanding with respect to Ground Three, the

allegation that Petitioner’s guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary. [Doc. No. 15 at 5.] 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that on or before September 12, 2008, Respondent

shall file supplemental briefing addressing the two issues raised by Petitioner in his objections regarding

whether the guilty plea was knowing and voluntary. Furthermore, if Respondent is unable to adequately

respond to the objections based on the state court record, Respondent shall identify which individuals

and/or documents would be necessary in order to develop the record, and the soonest possible time these

individuals and/or documents would be available for an evidentiary hearing. See Bashor v. Risley, 730

F.2d 1228, 1233 (9th Cir. 1984) (holding that an evidentiary hearing is not required on issues which can

be resolved on the basis of the state court record).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: August 27, 2008

CATHY ANN BENCIVENGO

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-01139-L-CAB Document 16 Filed 08/27/08 Page 2 of 2