Dewayne Terry Landrum v. People of the State of Arizona

Filing 3

ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING CASE by Judge David O. Carter. (See document for details). Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (ib)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DEWAYNE TERRY LANDRUM,

12
13
14
15
16

Petitioner,
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. CV 14-6744 DOC (RZ)
ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING
PUTATIVE “SECTION 2255 MOTION
TO VACATE STATE SENTENCE”

17

The Court will summarily dismiss this action. It is unclear whether Petitioner

18

Dewayne Terry Landrum, a federal inmate at Lompoc, wishes to challenge a Michigan

19

federal sentence or an Arizona state sentence. Whichever sentence he wishes to challenge,

20

he is simply in the wrong court, having apparently filed his action in this District solely

21

because he happens to be serving his federal sentence here.

22

Before turning to the pleading commencing this action, the Court addresses

23

some background information. Petitioner was one of dozens of defendants named in a

24

sweeping drug-trafficking case commenced in Maricopa County Superior Court on

25

September 29, 2011. (The Court takes judicial notice of the Arizona court information

26

based on public records available at http://apps.supremecourt.az.gov/publicaccess/

27

caselookup.aspx.) On October 13, 2013, and pursuant to a plea agreement, Petitioner

28

pleaded guilty to Count 140 in the massive indictment, namely “Solicitation of the Sale of

1

Marijuana Having Weight Greater than Four Pounds.” Minutes of October 13, 2013 in

2

Arizona v. Landrum, CR2011-150285-046 DT, available at http://www.courtminutes.

3

maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/112013/m6020640.pdf. On December 12, 2013, he was

4

sentenced as follows, as reflected in the minutes:

5
6

AS PUNISHMENT, IT IS ORDERED Defendant is sentenced to a term

7

of imprisonment and is committed to the Arizona Department of Corrections

8

as follows:
Count 140: 2.5 year(s) from December 12, 2013

9
10

Presentence Incarceration Credit: 100 days

11

Presumptive [sic]

12

Sentence is concurrent with 11-CR 20513-7 U.S. District Court.

13
14

Minutes of Dec. 12, 2013 in Arizona v. Landrum, supra, available at

15

http://www.courtminutes. maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/122013/m6082265.pdf (financial

16

aspects omitted).

17

As the final quoted words hint, Petitioner previously had been convicted in

18

a factually related federal prosecution (under the first name of “Dwayne” rather than

19

“Dewayne”) in the Eastern District of Michigan in U.S. v. Duah. Petitioner entered a plea

20

agreement on May 3, 2012 and was sentenced on November 15, 2012 to 40 months in

21

federal prison, among other punishments.

22

The current petition is a chimera of sorts, in that Petitioner uses language

23

sometimes suggesting that he means to challenge his Michigan federal sentence, and

24

sometimes – rather more often – suggesting that he means to challenge his Arizona state

25

sentence. For example:

26

*

On the one hand, Petitioner captions the pleading as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion,

27

which would properly target only a federal sentence. On the other hand, he states

28

in the caption’s very next words that he seeks “to vacate [a] state sentence[.]”
-2-

(Emphasis added.) He also names the State of Arizona as Respondent.

1
2

*

On the one hand, Petitioner refers (on page 1) to misapplication of Federal

3

Sentencing Guidelines, which presumably apply only in a federal prosecution. On

4

the other hand, in the opening body paragraph, he cites 28 U.S.C. § 2254, the

5

principle statute governing habeas relief from state criminal judgments. Perhaps

6

most tellingly, Petitioner bases his two first-page claims on errors by “state counsel”

7

and “the Arizona Superior Court.”

8

The Court need not resolve this confusion. No matter which of these

9

judgments Petitioner targets, he is in the wrong court. The proper federal court in which

10

to challenge the 2013 state court judgment is the United States District Court for the

11

District of Arizona – but only after Petitioner has exhausted his claims in the Arizona state

12

courts. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241; Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky, 410 U.S.

13

484, 494-95 (1973) (petitioner housed in one state may seek relief from another state’s

14

judgment, but only if the court hearing the petition has personal jurisdiction over the

15

petitioner’s immediate custodian); 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b) (exhaustion prerequisite). The

16

proper court in which to challenge the Michigan federal court judgment in a section 2255

17

motion is the same court that issued that judgment. (Proceedings in this Court would only

18

be appropriate – and even then based on 28 U.S.C § 2241 rather than § 2254 or § 2255 –

19

if Petitioner were challenging the manner in which his federal sentence was being carried

20

out. See Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th Cir. 1989). He is not. He claims

21

(1) that his “state counsel” was ineffective at sentencing, (2) that “the Arizona Superior

22

Court” miscalculated his sentence and (3) that his plea was involuntary and therefore not

23

valid. See Pet. at 1, 7-9.)

24
25
26

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DISMISSES the action WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.
DATED: September 7, 2014

27
28

DAVID O. CARTER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-3-