Joshua Lee Flores v. Robert W. Fox

Filing 35

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE 29 by Judge Dale S. Fischer. Having reviewed de novo those portions of the R. & R. to which objections were filed, the Court accepts the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that the Petition is denied and Judgment be entered dismissing this action with prejudice. (See Order for Further Details) (kl)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
JOSHUA LEE FLORES,

10
Petitioner,

11
v.

12
ROBERT W. FOX, Warden,

13
Respondent.

14

)Case No. EDCV 16-0102-DSF (JPR)
)
)
)ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND
)RECOMMENDATIONS OF U.S.
)MAGISTRATE JUDGE
)
)
)
)
)

15
16

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed de novo

17 the Petition, records on file, and Report and Recommendation of
18 U.S. Magistrate Judge. On May 22, 2017, Petitioner filed
19 Objections to the R. & R. He raises three objections, which
20 essentially repeat his arguments in the Petition and Traverse.
21 Two objections require brief discussion, however.
22

First, Petitioner contends that the statutory maximum for

23 first-degree burglary is six years and thus his 16-year sentence
24 was an abuse of discretion. (Objs. at 2.) But as the Magistrate
25 Judge pointed out in the R. & R. (R. & R. at 15-16), the trial
26 court properly exercised its discretion in imposing the upper
27 term of six years for the burglary conviction and 10 years for
28 the related gun enhancement.

Second, Petitioner contends that

1 the trial court improperly relied on his “planning,
2 sophistication, and professionalism” in robbing the Allens as an
3 enhancement because he was acquitted of the robbery charge.
4 (Objs. at 2.)

But as the Magistrate Judge pointed out in the R.

5 & R. (R. & R. at 17), the state courts found that Petitioner’s
6 “planning, sophistication, and professionalism” were reasonably
7 related to his gun use during the burglary, not just the robbery.
8

Having reviewed de novo those portions of the R. & R. to

9 which objections were filed, the Court accepts the findings and
10 recommendations of the Magistrate Judge.

IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED

11 that the Petition is denied and Judgment be entered dismissing
12 this action with prejudice.
13

6/20/17

14 DATED:
15

DALE S. FISCHER
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2