Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01436/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01436-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Steven Vincent Bell
Petitioner
Ronald Rackley
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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

STEVEN VINCENT BELL, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

RONALD RACKLEY, 

Respondent. 

No. 2:16-cv-1436-JAM-EFB P 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in this petition for writ of habeas 

corpus brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Respondent moves to dismiss the petition for failure to 

state a cognizable federal habeas claim. ECF No. 10. For the reasons that follow, the motion 

must be granted. 

I. Background 

Petitioner is imprisoned consequent to a conviction for first degree residential burglary 

sustained in 2000, with sentencing enhancements for prior convictions. ECF No. 11, Resp’t’s 

Notice of Lodging Documents in Paper, Lodged Document (hereinafter “Lodg. Doc.”) No. 1. On 

his direct appeal, the California Court of Appeal summarized the case as follows: 

Early one morning, defendants Donna LeMaire and Steven Vincent Bell drove to 

Roseville, where Bell took a $350 bicycle out of a garage. The police caught 

them red-handed: LeMaire was in Bell’s truck, with the bicycle in the back; a 

tracking dog followed a scent from the garage to where Bell was hiding. 

Case 2:16-cv-01436-JAM-EFB Document 16 Filed 02/10/17 Page 1 of 4
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

The jury convicted LeMaire of burglary and the court placed her on probation. 

The jury convicted Bell of burglary and the misdemeanor crime of resisting arrest. 

Two jurors refused to apply the Three Strikes law. After the court replaced those 

jurors, the new jury found Bell had suffered two prior felony convictions which 

qualified as strikes. The court sent Bell to prison for 35 years to life. 

Lodg. Doc. No. 2. 

In 2014, petitioner filed a “motion for recall of sentence,” asking to be re-sentenced under 

California Penal Code §§ 1170.126 et seq. (the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012). Lodg. Doc. 

No. 5. The Superior Court found him ineligible for re-sentencing under the Act, however, 

because his conviction was for residential burglary, a serious felony excluded from the Act’s 

purview. Lodg. Doc. No. 6. His appeal of that determination was denied because he had raised 

issues attacking his trial and sentencing instead of the lower court’s application of the Act. Lodg. 

Doc. No. 7. A subsequent petition for California Supreme Court review was also denied. Lodg. 

Doc. No. 9. 

Petitioner raises the following claims in this action: 

1. The trial court imposed an unauthorized sentence because it failed to establish whether 

or not the two prior convictions qualified as strikes under state law; and 

2. The state courts erred in denying petitioner’s motion for recall of sentence because 

they erroneously applied governing state law. 

Petitioner has placed some language in the petition indicating that he asserts these claims as 

violations of the federal constitutional guarantees of competent counsel and due process. ECF 

No. 1. 

II. The Motion to Dismiss 

Respondent argues that the petition must be dismissed because it raises no cognizable 

basis for federal habeas relief. Such relief may be had where an inmate is in custody in violation 

of the federal Constitution, laws, or treaties. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). “[I]t is not the province of a 

federal habeas court to reexamine state-court determinations on state-law questions.” Estelle v. 

Mcguire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68 (1991). Absent a showing of a constitutional violation, a state 

court’s application of state sentencing laws – including schemes that enhance sentences based on 

///// 

Case 2:16-cv-01436-JAM-EFB Document 16 Filed 02/10/17 Page 2 of 4
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

prior convictions – cannot be challenged in a federal habeas petition. Bueno v. Hallahan, 988 

F.2d 86, 88 (9th Cir. 1993). 

Here, petitioner challenges the trial court’s application of the Three Strikes Law and the 

Superior Court’s application of the Three Strikes Reform Act. While he attempts to couch these 

challenges in constitutional terms, he has not presented any facts supporting his bald assertion of 

ineffective assistance of counsel or the kind of fundamental unfairness that may indicate violation 

of due process. See Richmond v. Lewis, 506 U.S. 40, 50 (1992) (state sentencing error violates 

due process only where it was “so arbitrary or capricious” as to constitute a violation of due 

process independent of the state law error). Petitioner may not transform these alleged state-law 

violations into federal claims simply by placing constitutional language in his petition. Langford 

v. Day, 110 F.3d 1380, 1389 (9th Cir, 1996) (state-law issues cannot be transformed into federal 

ones merely by asserting violation of due process); Pontod v. Muniz, No. 2:16-cv-0622 KJM 

GGH P, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130809, at *17-18 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 23, 2016) (“No federal court 

has found federal challenges to the Three Strikes Reform Act to be cognizable in federal habeas”) 

and cases cited therein. 

III. Conclusion and Recommendation 

 Because the petition asserts solely errors of state law that are not cognizable under 28 

U.S.C. § 2254, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that respondent’s September 8, 2016 motion to 

dismiss (ECF No. 10) be granted. 

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 fourteen 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 fourteen days after service of the objections. Failure to file 

objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 

Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 

1991). In his objections petitioner may address whether a certificate of appealability should issue 

Case 2:16-cv-01436-JAM-EFB Document 16 Filed 02/10/17 Page 3 of 4
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 

4

in the event he files an appeal of the judgment in this case. See Rule 11, Rules Governing Section 

2254 Cases (the district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a 

final order adverse to the applicant). 

DATED: February 9, 2017. 

Case 2:16-cv-01436-JAM-EFB Document 16 Filed 02/10/17 Page 4 of 4