Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00346/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00346-5/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VERNON RAY DAILEY,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-06-346 LKK GGH P

vs.

TOM CAREY, et al., ORDER AND

Respondent. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas

corpus. Pending before the court is respondent’s July 7, 2006, motion to dismiss on grounds that

this action is barred by the statute of limitations. For the following reasons, respondent’s motion

is vacated and the court recommends that this action be dismissed on grounds that petitioner is

not entitled to relief. See Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases (court may summarily

dismiss petition if petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief).

This action is proceeding on the original petition filed February 17, 2006. 

Petitioner states that he is challenging his July 22, 2005, conviction for perjury. Petition, p. 1.

Attached to respondent’s motion to dismiss as document one is the abstract of judgment from

petitioner’s conviction. This document states that petitioner was sentenced on July 22, 2003. 

Petitioner did not appeal his conviction. Therefore, his conviction became final upon the

Case 2:06-cv-00346-LKK -GGH Document 17 Filed 11/14/06 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

2

expiration of the 60 day period following the imposition of his sentence. Cal. Rule of Court,

Rule 31(a). 

The petition contains one claim: petitioner’s sentence must be “reduced” pursuant

to Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531 (2004). In Schardt v. Payne, 414 F.3d

1025 (9 Cir. 2005), the Ninth Circuit held that Blakely does not apply retroactive to a conviction th

that was final before that decision was announced. 

Petitioner may not raise a Blakely claim as that case was decided after his

conviction became final. For this reason, the court recommends that the petition be dismissed.

Moreover, petitioner complains about the trial judge’s use of a prior conviction to

enhance his sentence. Even assuming petitioner’s claim could be initially construed as one

arising from Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S. Ct. 2348 (2000), the fact of a prior

conviction, which was utilized to enhance petitioner’s sentence herein, is a fact excluded from

Apprendi’s purview.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that respondent’s July 27, 2006, motion

to dismiss is vacated; and

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that petitioner's application for a writ of

habeas corpus be dismissed.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are advised 

\\\\\

\\\\\

\\\\\

Case 2:06-cv-00346-LKK -GGH Document 17 Filed 11/14/06 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

3

that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District

Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: 11/14/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ggh:kj

dai346.dis

Case 2:06-cv-00346-LKK -GGH Document 17 Filed 11/14/06 Page 3 of 3