Hosley v. Foulk
Filing
39
ORDER denying 38 Petitioner's motion for resentencing. Signed by Magistrate Judge Clinton Averitte for Magistrate Judge Andrew G. Schopler on 8/03/2018. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(jpp)
1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
6
Walter L. HOSLEY,
7
Case No.: 15-cv-0877-JAH-AGS
Petitioner,
8
9
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S
MOTION FOR RESENTENCING
(ECF No. 38)
v.
Sandra ALFARO,
10
Respondent.
11
12
Hosley, a state prisoner, has a pending petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for
13
review of his state court judgment. moves this Court for an order to resentence him as a
14
result of a change in state law. Specifically, he argues that California “Senate Bill[s] 1392
15
and 1393” requires that this Court “remove petitioner[’]s priors, and enhancements.” (Mot.,
16
ECF No. 38, at 1-2.) But this Court does not sit as an appellate court over state law, see
17
Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68 (1991), and has no authority to resentence Hosley’s
18
state criminal judgment due to a change in state law. See Ozuna v. Pfeiffer, No. CV 16-
19
7823-SJO(E), 2017 WL 634535, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2017) (noting that a change in
20
state sentencing law does not affect the availability of federal habeas relief). Instead, if he
21
seeks resentencing as a result of a change in state law, he must request that relief from the
22
Californian courts. Accordingly, the motion for resentencing is denied.
23
24
Dated: August 3, 2018
25
26
27
28
1
15-cv-0877-JAH-AGS
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?