Beyett v. Martell

Filing 3

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR A WRIT re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Lynn Charles Beyett. Signed by Judge William Alsup on 12/18/11. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(dt, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/20/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

LYNN CHARLES BEYETT,
Petitioner,

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR
A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

v.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

No. C 11-5557 WHA (PR)

MIKE MARTELL,
Respondent.

13

/
14
INTRODUCTION

15

Petitioner, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of habeas

16
17

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. He has paid the filing fee. For the reasons discussed below,

18

the petition is DENIED.
STATEMENT

19

In 1998, petitioner pled guilty in San Mateo County Superior Court of robbery and was

20
21

sentenced under California’s “Three Strikes” law to a term of 36 years to life in state prison

22

because he had two prior “strike” convictions. Petitioner does not indicate whether he appealed

23

his conviction. Earlier this year, he filed unsuccessful habeas petitions in all three levels of the

24

California courts. These petitions all raised the same claim he raises in the instant petition,

25

namely that his sentence violated his right to a jury.
ANALYSIS

26
27
28

A.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
This court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus "in behalf of a person in

1

custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in

2

violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. 2254(a); Rose

3

v. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). Habeas corpus petitions must meet heightened pleading

4

requirements. McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994). An application for a federal writ

5

of habeas corpus filed by a prisoner who is in state custody pursuant to a judgment of a state

6

court must “specify all the grounds for relief which are available to the petitioner ... and shall

7

set forth in summary form the facts supporting each of the grounds thus specified.” Rule 2(c) of

8

the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. foll. 2254. “‘[N]otice’ pleading is not

9

sufficient, for the petition is expected to state facts that point to a ‘real possibility of
constitutional error.’” Rule 4 Advisory Committee Notes (quoting Aubut v. Maine, 431 F.2d

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

688, 689 (1st Cir. 1970)).

12

B.

LEGAL CLAIMS

13

Petitioner claims that the trial court violated his constitutional right to a jury by

14

enhancing his sentence under California “Three Strikes” law based on a determination by the

15

judge, instead of a jury, that he suffered prior “strike” convictions. “Other than the fact of a

16

prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory

17

maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” Apprendi v.

18

New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000); see Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 303-04

19

(2004). Petitioner’s claim fails for two reasons. First, the rule in Apprendi and Blakely is a new

20

constitutional rule of criminal procedure that does not apply retroactively on habeas review to

21

prisoners, such as petitioner, whose conviction and sentence became final prior to those

22

decisions. Schardt v. Payne, 414 F.3d 1025, 1038 (9th Cir. 2005). Second, there is an

23

exception for sentences that are extended based on prior convictions. When a sentence is

24

enhanced based upon a prior conviction, there is no constitutional right to have a jury determine

25

the fact of the prior conviction. United States v. Pacheco-Zepeda, 234 F.3d 411, 414-15 (9th

26

Cir. 2001). As petitioner’s sentence was enhanced based upon his prior convictions, he does

27

not have a right to have a jury determine whether he suffered those convictions. Accordingly,

28

the petitioner’s claim is without merit, and he is not entitled to habeas relief.
2

1

CONCLUSION

2

In light of the foregoing, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DENIED.

3

Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases now requires a district court to

4

rule on whether a petitioner is entitled to a certificate of appealability in the same order in

5

which the petition is denied. Petitioner has failed to make a substantial showing that a

6

reasonable jurist would find this court’s denial of his claim debatable or wrong. Slack v.

7

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Consequently, no certificate of appealability is warranted

8

in this case.

9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11
Dated: December
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

The clerk shall enter judgment and close the file.

18

, 2011.

12

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

G:\PRO-SE\WHA\HC.11\BEYETT5557.DSM.wpd

3