Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06374/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06374-1/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES ROBERT DUPREE, JR., )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

TOM L. CAREY, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

)

 )

1:04-cv-06374-AWI-SMS-HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 16)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO ENTER

JUDGMENT FOR RESPONDENT

ORDER DECLINING TO ISSUE

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On December 10, 2007, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and

Recommendations that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be

DENIED, and the Clerk of Court be directed to enter judgment in

favor of Respondent. These Findings and Recommendations were

served on all parties and contained notice that any objections were

to be filed within thirty (30) days from the date of service of

that order. On January 10, 2008, Petitioner filed objections to

the Findings and Recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636

(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a de novo review of the case. 

Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Petitioner's

Case 1:04-cv-06374-AWI -SMS Document 19 Filed 02/27/08 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

objections, the court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's

Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and proper

analysis. Petitioner's objections present no grounds for

questioning the Magistrate Judge's analysis. 

In the objections Petitioner contends, as he does in his

petition, that his trial counsel was ineffective for advising him

that if he pled guilty he would be eligible to earn 50% credits

while in prison. After the gulity plea, the trial court held

several hearings to determine what representations the district

attorney and Petitioner's counsel had given him regarding earning

credits. This evidence clearly shows that Petitioner was only

eligible to earn 15% credits. This evidence also shows that trial

counsel admitted he had mistakenly told Petitioner he would receive

50% credits if he pled. Based on these facts, the issue before

this court on Petitioner's ineffective assistance of counsel claim

is whether Petitioner was prejudiced by Petitioner's counsel's

advice. 

During several hearings prior to sentencing, the trial court

made the factual finding that Petitioner would have pled guilty

even if his trial counsel had told him he could only earn credits

at 15%. Relying in this factual finding, the Magistrate Judge

concluded that Petitioner could not show prejudice from trial

counsel's misadvise. It appears Petitioner's dispute is with the

trial court's finding that Petitioner would have pled guilty

despite the incorrect advice. 

This court reviews a state court's factual determinations

under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2). See Lambert v. Blodgett, 393 F.3d

943, 978 (9th Cir. 2004). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2), the

Case 1:04-cv-06374-AWI -SMS Document 19 Filed 02/27/08 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

court may only grant a petition for a writ of habeas corpus if the

adjudication of the claim "resulted in a decision that was based on

an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence

presented in the State court proceeding." Under Section 2254(d)(2)

"the question on review is whether an appellate panel, applying the

normal standards of appellate review, could reasonably conclude

that the finding is supported by the record." Lambert, 393 F.3d at

978. "[M]ere doubt as to the adequacy of the state court's

findings of fact is insufficient; [the court] must be satisfied

that any appellate court to whom the defect [in the state court's

fact-finding process] is pointed out would be unreasonable in

holding that the state court's fact-finding process was adequate."

Id. at 972 (internal quotes omitted). Section § 2254(d)(2)

instructs the court to be particularly deferential to state-court

judges when conducting this kind of intrinsic review of a state

court's processes. Weaver v. Palmateer, 455 F.3d 958, 963 (9th

Cir. 2006). 

The trial court's factual determination that Petitioner would

have pled guilty even if he had been properly advised about credits

is supported by the evidence presented in state court given the

previous plea negotiations between the parties, the timing of the

plea, and the fact Petitioner was looking at a potential 88 year

sentence. Thus, the trial court's finding that Petitioner would

have pled guilty regardless of his counsel's advice on credits was

not an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the

evidence presented in state court. Accordingly, Petitioner cannot

show that he was prejudiced by counsel's error, and as such, the

court cannot find that the state court's finding that Petitioner's

Case 1:04-cv-06374-AWI -SMS Document 19 Filed 02/27/08 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

counsel was not ineffective was contrary to, or involved an

unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law. 

Accordingly, the court ORDERS that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed December 10,

2007, are ADOPTED IN FULL; 

2. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED;

3. The Clerk of Court enter judgment in favor of Respondent,

and,

4. The court declines to issue a Certificate of

Appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Slack v. McDaniel,

529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (a COA should be granted where

the applicant has made “a substantial showing of the

denial of a constitutional right,” i.e., when “reasonable

jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the

constitutional claims debatable or wrong”; Hoffman v.

Arave, 455 F.3d 926, 943 (9 Cir. 2006) (same). In the th

present case, the Court finds that reasonable jurists

would not find it debatable that the state courts’

decision denying Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas

corpus were not “objectively unreasonable.” 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 25, 2008 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06374-AWI -SMS Document 19 Filed 02/27/08 Page 4 of 4