Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-04528/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-04528-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
David Alan Smith
Petitioner
Derek Taylor
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

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID ALAN SMITH, 

Petitioner,

 vs.

Lieutenant DEREK TAYLOR, Camp

Commander,

Respondent.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 05-4528 PJH (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Petitioner, a California prisoner currently incarcerated at the La Cima

Conservation Camp in Julian, California, has filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He has paid the filing fee. 

Venue is proper in this district because the conviction was obtained in Sonoma

County, which is in this district. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). 

BACKGROUND

Petitioner pled guilty to four counts of second degree robbery. He was

sentenced to eight years in prison. 

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

A district court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus "in behalf of a

person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is

in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." 28

U.S.C. § 2254(a); Rose v. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). 

A habeas petition may be dismissed summarily "[i]f it plainly appears from the

Case 4:05-cv-04528-PJH Document 4 Filed 12/06/05 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

face of the petition and any exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to

relief in the district court. . . ." Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases; Hendricks

v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990). Summary dismissal is appropriate only

where the allegations in the petition are vague or conclusory, palpably incredible, or

patently frivolous or false. Id. (quoting Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 75-76

(1977)). 

B. Legal Claims

Petitioner contends that his sentence was based on a number of facts in

aggravation which were decided by the sentencing court, rather than a jury. He

contends that this violated Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 488-90 (2000), and

Blakely v. Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531, 2537 (2004). However, both those cases

announced a new constitutional rule of criminal procedure that does not apply

retroactively on habeas review. United States v. Sanchez-Cervantes, 282 F.3d 664,

665 (9th Cir. 2002) (Apprendi); Schardt v. Payne, 414 F.3d 1025, 1038 (9th Cir. 2005)

(Blakely). This means that petitioner’s sole argument cannot be grounds for federal

habeas relief. Because of this, he case will be dismissed. 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, the petition is DISMISSED. See Rule 4, Rules

Governing Section 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254.

The clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 6, 2005.

 

 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

 

Case 4:05-cv-04528-PJH Document 4 Filed 12/06/05 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

G:\PRO-SE\PJH\HC.05\SMITH528.DSM 

Case 4:05-cv-04528-PJH Document 4 Filed 12/06/05 Page 3 of 3