Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-00864/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-00864-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Arthur Calderon
Respondent
Fred Mott
Petitioner

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRED MOTT, 

Petitioner,

 v.

ARTHUR CALDERON,

Respondent. ______________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 03-0864 MMC (PR)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART MOTION TO

AMEND JUNE 12, 2006 ORDER

On February 27, 2003, petitioner, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed the

above-titled petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner

thereafter was granted leave to amend the petition to add an additional claim for relief, for a

total of twenty claims. In an order dated June 12, 2006, the amended petition was denied on

its merits, and judgment was entered against petitioner. On September 19, 2006, petitioner

filed a notice of appeal. Attached to petitioner’s notice of appeal is a motion titled “Motion

to Amend the Findings and Statements of Fact, Pursuant to Rule 52(b).” 

Rule 52(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides for a motion to amend the

findings of the court. In his motion, petitioner asserts that the June 12, 2006 Order (“Order”)

misstated the nature of two of his four prior convictions. The Order listed petitioner’s four

prior convictions as follows: a 1986 rape conviction from Elkhart, Indiana, a 1986 sodomy

conviction from Elkhart, Indiana, a 1973 rape conviction from Peoria, Illinois, and a 1968

Case 3:03-cv-00864-MMC Document 76 Filed 11/22/06 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

27

28

2

attempted rape conviction from Chicago, Illinois. These were the prior convictions set forth

in the original Information, in the opinion of the California Court of Appeal, and in

respondent’s brief. (See Clerk’s Transcript (“CT”) (Resp.’s Ex. B) at 352-59; Cal. Ct. App.

Opinion (Resp.’s Ex. C) at 12; Mem. P. & A. In Support of Answer at 2.) In his motion,

however, petitioner asserts that the 1986 convictions from Elkhart, Indiana were in fact 

convictions for rape and oral copulation, and that the 1973 conviction from Peoria, Illinois,

was in fact a conviction for attempted rape. A review of the record indicates that the

Information subsequently was amended; the 1986 convictions from Elkhart, Indiana were

changed from rape and sodomy to rape and “Unlawful Sexual Deviant Conduct, to wit: oral

copulation while armed,” and the 1973 Peoria, Illinois conviction was changed from rape to

“attempted rape.” (CT at 656-57.) These prior convictions were conceded by petitioner at

trial and also were found true by the trial court. (CT at 1375; Reporter’s Transcript (“RT”)

(Resp.’s Ex. A) at 2603-04.) Consequently, it appears from the record that, contrary to the

opinion of the California Court of Appeal and respondent’s brief, petitioner’s 1986

convictions in Elkhart, Indiana were for rape and oral copulation, and not for rape and

sodomy, and that his 1973 conviction in Peoria, Illinois was for attempted rape and not rape. 

Accordingly, the Order will be amended throughout to reflect the correct nature of

petitioner’s prior convictions.

Further, based on a review of the record and the papers filed herein, the following

additional amendments requested by petitioner will be made to the Order:

1. The phrase “human feces” on page 5, line 2 will be changed to “possible urine

and feces.” (RT at 1670.)

2. The phrase “forcibly sodomized her” on page 7, line 13, will be changed to

“attempted to sodomize her.” (RT at 2414.) 

Based on a review of the record and the papers filed herein, the Court finds the

remaining requested amendments in petitioner’s motion are not warranted. 

Finally, based on the Court’s own review of the Order, the Court finds the first

reference to the year “1967"on page 6, line 3, should be changed to “1968,” and such

Case 3:03-cv-00864-MMC Document 76 Filed 11/22/06 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

27

28

3

additional amendment will be made.

Accordingly, petitioner’s motion to amend the June 12, 2006 Order Denying Petition

for a Writ of Habeas Corpus is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART; the June 12,

2006 Order Denying Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus will be AMENDED as provided

herein and as set forth in the Amended Order Denying Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus

filed concurrently herewith.

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 22, 2006 _________________________ MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:03-cv-00864-MMC Document 76 Filed 11/22/06 Page 3 of 3