Source: http://nm.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180424_0000871.DNM.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2020-03-28 17:59:15
Document Index: 154754059

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1303', '§ 636', '§ 1301', '§ 1302', '§ 1302', '§ 1302']

FindACase™ | Garcia v. Geisen
THIS MATTER comes before the Court upon Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus for Relief from a Tribal Court Conviction Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. § 1303[1] (“Petition”), filed June 30, 2017 (Doc. 1). Also on June 30, 2017, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), this Petition was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Kevin R. Sweazea to conduct any necessary hearings and to recommend an ultimate disposition. See Nunc Pro Tunc Order of Reference, ECF No. 35. Having reviewed the record and the parties' briefing, the undersigned recommends that the Court GRANT Petitioner's Petition and VACATE Petitioner's underlying sentence and conviction.
On March 18, 2017, Petitioner was arrested for Intoxication; Disorderly Conduct; Probation Violation; Failure to Comply; and ten (10) counts of Assault. He was brought before the Tribal Court on March 21, 2017, at which time he entered pleas of guilty. The Court adjudged Petitioner guilty, sentenced him to 364 days in jail, and assessed various fines and fees. (Doc. 1, Ex. 1-2). On June 30, 2017, Petitioner filed the instant Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, alleging violations of the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968 (“ICRA”) 25 U.S.C. §§ 1301-1303. Specifically, Petitioner argues that he was (1) denied the right to assistance of counsel, in violation of 25 U.S.C. § 1302(a)(6), (c)(1); (2) denied the right to a trial by jury, in violation of 25 U.S.C. § 1302(a)(10); and (3) subjected to cruel and unusual punishment, in violation of 25 U.S.C. § 1302(a)(7)(A), (c).
On January 22, 2018, the Court ordered that Petitioner be released from prison, “pending the Court's final order or decision.” Order for Release of Petitioner, ECF No. 24, p. 2. Through a series of briefings and hearings, Respondents expressed that they did not oppose Petitioner's Petition, and thus the parties were directed to provide Judge Herrera with a stipulated proposed order granting the petition. Unfortunately, the parties were unable to agree upon the proper relief to be granted. Respondents were amenable to relief which vacated Petitioner's sentence and conviction, whereas Petitioner desired a reversal of his sentence and conviction.[2] The parties were invited to brief the issue of relief and the Court set a briefing deadline of February 23, 2018. Respondents Robert Coriz and Esquipula Tenorio (collectively “Tribal Respondents”) were the only parties to submit such a brief.
From its inception, the writ of habeas corpus was designed to be a mechanism through which one could challenge the legality of his or her confinement. At common law, the writ was used solely to challenge a court's jurisdiction to commit an individual to prison. See, e.g., Ex parte Watkins, 28 U.S. 193, 197 (1830). However, the writ has long since been codified and its scope has expanded to address a multitude of post-conviction challenges from questions of jurisdiction to collateral attacks on constitutional violations. See Withrow v. Williams, 507 U.S. 680 (1993) (finding that habeas jurisdiction extends to Miranda violations); Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465 (1976) (discussing the expansion of the writ of habeas corpus). As with most principles of law that withstand the test of time, habeas corpus jurisprudence has evolved, resulting in debates over federalism, finality, and the safeguarding of rights. See, e.g., Withrow, 507 U.S. 680 (1993); Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72 (1977).