Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_01-cv-05821/USCOURTS-caed-1_01-cv-05821-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Tony Flowers
Petitioner
Anthony Lamarque
Respondent

Document Text:

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

TONY FLOWERS, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

ANTHONY LaMARQUE, WARDEN, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:01-cv-05821-AWI-DLB-HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 44)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO

ENTER JUDGMENT

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a

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

On July 15, 2005, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and

Recommendations that recommended the Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus be DENIED, and that 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 August 10, 2005, Petitioner

filed a motion to extend time. On September 12, 2005, the court

granted Petitioner thirty (30) days within which to respond. On

September 16, 2005, Petitioner filed objections to the Findings and

Recommendations.

Case 1:01-cv-05821-AWI-DLB Document 48 Filed 12/22/05 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

2

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

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 his objections, Petitioner primarily takes issue with the

Magistrate Judge's finding that trial counsel was not ineffective

for advising Petitioner to pled guilty to a sentence of life with

the possibility of parole in seven years. The court has reviewed

the relevant declarations and log sheets. The court agrees with the

Magistrate Judge that the evidence does not support a factual

finding that Petitioner was offered the choice of a fourteen year

determinate sentence or a life with the possibility of parole

sentence on the day of trial. At best, Petitioner has shown that

he may have been offered a fourteen year sentence at an earlier

time; but it appears this offer would have only resolved the

carjacking count and not have resolved the pending kidnaping count. 

Even assuming Petitioner's attorney did advice him not to take a

fourteen year determinate sentence, Petitioner's attorney's

inaccurate prediction of which sentence would actually turn out to

result in more prison time does not rise to the level of a gross

mischaracterization of the likely outcome of his case, and thus did

not fall below an objective standard of reasonableness. See

Doganiere v. U.S., 914 F.2d 165, 168 (9th Cir. 1990).

 In addition, the court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that

Petitioner's claim regarding counsel's advice on a possible

Case 1:01-cv-05821-AWI-DLB Document 48 Filed 12/22/05 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

3

fourteen year sentence is procedurally defaulted. While Respondent

bears the ultimate burden of proving a state procedural rule bars

federal review, Petitioner has failed to carry his initial burden

of demonstrating the inadequacy of the state procedure, including

citation to authority demonstrating inconsistent application of the

rule. See Collier v. Bayer, 408 F.3d 1279, 1284 (9th Cir. 2005);

Bennettt v. Mueller, 322 F.3d 573, 586 (9th Cir. 2003).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed July 15, 2005,

are ADOPTED IN FULL;

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

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 21, 2005 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:01-cv-05821-AWI-DLB Document 48 Filed 12/22/05 Page 3 of 3