Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01753/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01753-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gregory A. Chandler
Petitioner
J. McCover
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GREGORY A. CHANDLER, No. 2:14-CV-1753-GEB-CMK-P

Petitioner, 

vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

J. McCOVER,

Respondent.

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pending before the court is respondent’s motion to

dismiss (Doc. 13). 

In his petition, petitioner raises one claim – that the state court committed errors

of state law with respect to prior convictions and sentencing. Specifically, petitioner claims that

the state court misapplied the California Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 in denying

resentencing in April 2013. Respondent argues that this claim is not cognizable on federal

habeas review. The court agrees. 

/ / /

/ / /

1

Case 2:14-cv-01753-GEB-CMK Document 23 Filed 02/12/16 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

A writ of habeas corpus is available under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 only on the basis of a

transgression of federal law binding on the state courts. See Middleton v. Cupp, 768 F.2d 1083,

1085 (9th Cir. 1985); Gutierrez v. Griggs, 695 F.2d 1195, 1197 (9th Cir. 1983). It is not

available for alleged error in the interpretation or application of state law. Middleton, 768 F.2d at

1085; see also Lincoln v. Sunn, 807 F.2d 805, 814 (9th Cir. 1987); Givens v. Housewright, 786

F.2d 1378, 1381 (9th Cir. 1986). Habeas corpus cannot be utilized to try state issues de novo. 

See Milton v. Wainwright, 407 U.S. 371, 377 (1972). 

In this case, petitioner’s claim relates to the manner in which petitioner’s sentence

was determined under state law. Similar claims have been found to be non-cognizable. “The

decision whether to impose sentences consecutively or concurrently is a matter of state criminal

procedure and is not within the purview of federal habeas corpus.” Cacoperdo v. Demosthenes,

37 F.3d 504, 507 (9th Cir. 1994); see also Markey v. Brown, 2008 WL 552438 (E.D. Cal. May 7,

2008). Similarly, whether a prior offense constitutes a “strike” under California’s repeat offender

law is not cognizable on federal habeas review. See Miller v. Vasquez, 868 F.2d 1116, 1118-19

(9th Cir. 1989) (holding that whether a prior conviction constitutes a “strike” under California

Penal Code § 667(a) is a question of state law and does not state a federal question); see also

Cooper v. Supreme Court of California, 2014 WL 198708 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 16, 2014) (rejecting

petitioner’s due process challenge to state court’s denial of application for resentencing under the

California Three Strikes Reform Act). 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

2

Case 2:14-cv-01753-GEB-CMK Document 23 Filed 02/12/16 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

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that respondent’s motion to

dismiss (Doc. 13) 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 14 days

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of

objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. 

See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: February 12, 2016

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

Case 2:14-cv-01753-GEB-CMK Document 23 Filed 02/12/16 Page 3 of 3