Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06275/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06275-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gail Lewis
Respondent
Sue Thao
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SUE THAO,

Petitioner,

v.

GAIL LEWIS,

Respondents.

 /

CV F 03-6275 AWI DLB HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING PETITION

FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, AND

DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ENTER

JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF RESPONDENT

[Doc. 22]

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On April 29, 2005, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendation that the

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be DENIED. These Findings and Recommendations were

served on all parties and contained notice that any objections were to be filed within thirty (30)

days of the date of service of the order. 

After the Magistrate Judge granted addition time in which to file objections, Petitioner

filed objections to the Findings and Recommendations on July 5, 2005.

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 Recommendation is

supported by the record and proper analysis. Petitioner's objections present no grounds for

questioning the Magistrate Judge's analysis. 

Case 1:03-cv-06275-AWI-DLB Document 26 Filed 08/23/05 Page 1 of 2
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 the objections, Petitioner appears to contend that his plea was not knowing and

voluntary because he thought he would only be sentenced to ten years. In related claims,

Petitioner contends that his trial counsel was ineffective for not properly advising him about his

sentence and the interpreter told him he would receive only ten years. To satisfy the

Constitution, a guilty plea must be voluntary and intelligent. See e.g., Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S.

52, 56 (1985); Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 242 (1969). A plea is voluntary and intelligent

only if the defendant is fully aware of the direct consequences of his plea of guilty. Torrey v.

Estelle, 842 F.2d 234, 235 (9th Cir.1988). Here, the trial transcript indicates that Petitioner was

advised that the would receive a minimum of 20 years and four months and a maximum of 35

years. Petitioner stated on the record that he understood this potential sentence. "Solemn

declarations in open court carry a strong presumption of verity." Chizen v. Hunter, 809 F.2d

560, 562 (9th Cir.1986). While Petitioner challenges the veracity of the transcript, as cited by the

Magistrate Judge, the evidence in the case contains declarations from the prosecutor, defense

attorney, and the interpreter. All these individuals confirm that Petitioner was advised about the

potential consequences of his plea as reflected in the transcript. Given the overwhelming

evidence indicating Petitioner was informed about the minimum and maximum sentence, the

court declines to adopt Petitioner’s assertion that no one told him he would receive more than ten

years. For this reason, Petitioner’s claims fail. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations issued April 29, 2005, is ADOPTED IN

FULL;

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

3. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment in favor of Respondent. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 22, 2005 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06275-AWI-DLB Document 26 Filed 08/23/05 Page 2 of 2