Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00599/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00599-1/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL DAVID WILSON,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 11-CV-599 - IEG (BLM)

ORDER:

(1) ADOPTING IN FULL REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION

[Doc. No. 15]

(2) DENYING PETITION FOR

HABEAS CORPUS

[Doc. No. 1.]

(3) DENYING CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY

vs.

FRANK X. CHAVEZ, Warden,

Respondent.

Currently before the Court is Michael David Wilson (“Petitioner”)’s Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (“the Petition”). [Doc. No. 1.] Petitioner was

convicted, pursuant to a guilty plea that was negotiated by counsel appointed to replace his

original counsel, of vehicle theft and evading a police officer with reckless driving. [Id. at 2.] 

Petitioner was sentenced to nine years and four months in state prison. [Id. at 1.] Petitioner’s sole

claim in the Petition alleges a violation of his Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of

counsel. [Id. at 6.] Petitioner alleges that he was offered a six-year plea deal at his first court

appearance and informed his original counsel he wished to immediately accept the offer, but his

counsel failed to communicate Petitioner’s acceptance to the prosecutor, which caused the offer to

- 1 - 11cv599

Case 3:11-cv-00599-IEG-BLM Document 16 Filed 12/16/11 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

expire and resulted in Petitioner being sentenced to an additional three years and four months in

prison. [Id.]

Respondent filed an answer to the Petition along with a memorandum of points and

authorities. [Doc. Nos. 8-9.] In the answer, Respondent argues that federal habeas relief is

unavailable to Petitioner because the entry of Petitioner’s later negotiated guilty plea precludes any

attack on matters occurring before the entry of that plea, including any events surrounding the

earlier six-year plea offer. [Doc. No. 8 at 5.] Petitioner was granted leave to file a traverse on or

before July 22, 2011, but failed to do so by that date.

The Court referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Barbara L. Major, who issued a Report

and Recommendation concluding that habeas relief was not available to Petitioner because: (1) the

state court’s adjudication of Petitioner’s claim did not involve an unreasonable application of

clearly established federal law which precludes an attack on a conviction entered as a result of a

guilty plea unless (aside from exceptions which do not apply here) the plea was not voluntary and

intelligent; (2) even if Petitioner could make such a showing, he had waived any constitutional

claim arising from the original plea deal by entering into the subsequent negotiated plea; and (3)

Petitioner had already receive any relief to which he might be entitled because counsel had been

appointed in state court to assist him in enforcing the original six-year offer. [Doc. No. 15.] 

On September 26, 2011, Petitioner filed a motion for leave to file his untimely traverse,

[Doc. No. 12], which the Court granted and remanded the issue back to the Magistrate Judge for

the issuance of an Amended Report and Recommendation in light of the traverse. [Doc. No. 13.] 

The Magistrate Judge issued an Amended Report and Recommendation concluding again that

habeas relief was not available to Petitioner and also concluding: (1) that Petitioner has attempted

to raise a new claim in his traverse which is untimely, unexhausted or procedurally defaulted, and

the Court should exercise its discretion to decline to address the new claim; and (2) that an

evidentiary hearing is not warranted. [Doc. No. 15.] The Magistrate Judge recommended that the

Petition be denied. [Id.] The time for filing objections to the Amended Report and

Recommendation passed on November 14, 2011 without Petitioner filing any objections.

///

- 2 - 11cv599

Case 3:11-cv-00599-IEG-BLM Document 16 Filed 12/16/11 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

DISCUSSION

The Court reviews de novo those portions of the Amended Report and Recommendation to

which objections are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court may “accept, reject, or modify, in

whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Id. However,

“[t]he statute makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and

recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia,

328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original). “Neither the Constitution

nor the statute requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the

parties themselves accept as correct.” Id.

In this case, the time for filing objections to the Amended Report and Recommendation has

passed and Petitioner has not to this date filed any objections. Accordingly, the Court may adopt

the Amended Report and Recommendation on that basis alone. See id. Having reviewed the

Petition, the Answer, the relevant portions of the state record lodged by Respondent, the Traverse,

and the Amended Report and Recommendation, the Court hereby approves and ADOPTS IN

FULL the Report and Recommendation. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

CONCLUSION

Having reviewed the Amended Report and Recommendation and there being no

objections, the Court ADOPTS IN FULL the Amended Report and Recommendation and

DENIES the Petition.

The Court also denies a certificate of appealability because Petitioner has not “made a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 15, 2011 ______________________________

IRMA E. GONZALEZ, Chief Judge

United States District Court

- 3 - 11cv599

Case 3:11-cv-00599-IEG-BLM Document 16 Filed 12/16/11 Page 3 of 3