SANFORD v. HART
ORDER granting 11 Motion for Extension of Time to File an Objection and adopting 10 Report and Recommendations. The Petition is Denied. A Certificate of Appealability is Denied. Ordered by U.S. District Judge C ASHLEY ROYAL on 11/4/14 (lap)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
Case No. 5:12‐CV‐508 (CAR)
Proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Warden DARRELL HART,
ORDER ON THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF
THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of the United States
Magistrate Judge [Doc. 10] to deny Petitioner Horace Sanford’s petition for a writ of
habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In response, Petitioner filed a Motion for
Extension of Time to File an Objection [Doc. 11], and, within a few days thereafter, filed
an Objection to the Recommendation [Doc. 12]. The Court hereby GRANTS
Petitioner’s Motion for Extension of Time to File an Objection [Doc. 11]. Thus, pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court has conducted a de novo review of the portions of the
Recommendation to which Petitioner objects and finds the Objection to be without
In the current Section 2254 petition, Petitioner challenges his burglary conviction
following a guilty plea. The Magistrate Judge recommends denial of the petition
because (1) Bradshaw v. Stumpf 1 indicates that Petitioner’s guilty plea was “knowingly,
intelligently, and voluntarily” entered; (2) the state was not required to include “party
to a crime” language in the indictment; and (3) Petitioner’s plea counsel was not
ineffective for failing to object to the charge of burglary.
In his Objection, Petitioner continues to raise claims which indicate a lack of
understanding of Georgia’s “party to a crime” laws, the applicability of which was fully
explained by the Magistrate Judge in the Recommendation. For example, Petitioner
argues that “no burglary actually occurred,” that “party to crime would require proof
that [Petitioner] . . . shared in the criminal intent,” that there “should have been a
demurrer to the indictment,” and that counsel was ineffective for failing to file a
demurrer to the indictment “due to the essential elements missing.” 2 All of these
arguments were fully and adequately addressed and rejected by the Magistrate Judge.
Additionally, to the extent Petitioner argues that he should have been permitted
to plead guilty to attempted burglary because his co‐defendant did so, his argument
fails. Georgia law is clear that “[a] party to a crime may be [indicted, tried, convicted,
and punished] for the crime even though an alleged co‐party ‘has not been prosecuted
or convicted, or has been convicted of a different crime or degree of crime, or is not
545 U.S. 175 (2005).
Obj. at 2‐3, 8 [Doc. 12].
amenable to justice or has been acquitted.’”3 Given this authority, the Court discerns no
Based on the foregoing, the Court agrees with the findings and conclusions of the
United States Magistrate Judge. The Recommendation [Doc. 10] is therefore
ADOPTED and MADE THE ORDER OF THE COURT. Accordingly, the petition is
DENIED. Additionally, because Petitioner has failed to make a substantial showing of
the denial of a constitutional right, a certificate of appealability is DENIED.
SO ORDERED, this 4th day of November, 2014.
S/ C. Ashley Royal
C. ASHLEY ROYAL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Owens v. State, 251 Ga. 313, 319 (1983) (quoting O.C.G.A. § 16–2–21) (emphasis added).
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?