Woods v. Kirkegard et al

Filing 24

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 20 in full. Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 1 is DENIED for lack of merit and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. A certificate of appealability is DENIED. Signed by Judge Donald W. Molloy on 10/9/2015. Mailed to Woods. (TAG, )

FILED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
MISSOULA DIVISION

DANIEL J. WOODS,

OCT 0 9 2015
Cler~. U.S. District Court
District Of Montana
Missoula

CV 13-194-M-DWM

Petitioner,
ORDER
vs.
LEROY KIRKEGARD and ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF THE STATE OF
MONTANA,
Respondents.

Petitioner Daniel J. Woods filed this action under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He is a
state prisoner proceeding prose. Magistrate Judge Jeremiah Lynch recommends
denying Woods's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus on the merits. (Doc. 20.)
Woods timely filed written objections to Judge Lynch's findings and
recommendations. (Doc. 23.)
Woods is entitled to de novo review of the specified findings or
recommendations to which he objects. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1 ); McDonnell

Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Bus. Mach., Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir.
1981 ). Where there is no objection, the court is to give the level of consideration

1

it deems appropriate. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) ("It does not
appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate's
factual or legal conclusions, under a de nova or any other standard, when neither
party objects to those findings."). This Court reviews for clear error. Clear error
exists if the court is left with a "definite and firm conviction that a mistake has
been committed." Concrete Pipe & Prods. of Cal., Inc. v. Constr. Laborers
Pension Trust for S. Cal., Inc., 508 U.S. 602, 623 (1993) (internal quotation marks

omitted).
In his objections, Woods makes numerous accusations about the state
district court judge and prosecutor, including judicial bias and vindictive
prosecution. He states that "[i]rregularities abound in this case" and that he "keeps
piling on new claims in hopes that his judgment will be fairly served." (Doc. 23 at
7.) Woods does not reference any specific findings or recommendations to which
he objects. Nevertheless, construed broadly, Woods's objections amount to the
same arguments he has advanced before with regards to his claims that his rights
to confront witnesses and to due process of law have been violated. Woods' s
objections are overruled.
First, as to Woods's Confrontation Clause claim regarding the allegations
documented in the presentence investigation report, "hearsay is admissible at
2

sentencing, so long as it is accompanied by some minimal indicia of reliability."

United States v. Littlesun, 444 F.3d 1196, 1200 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation
marks omitted). See also id. (concluding that Crawfordv. Washington, 541 U.S.
36 (2004), did not overrule Williams v. New York, 337 U.S. 241 (1949)). At the
sentencing hearing, the prosecutor explained in enough detail where the
allegations came from to provide "some minimal indicia of reliability." (See Doc.
9-2 at 17.) Woods has therefore failed to establish a violation of his rights under
the Sixth Amendment.
Second, as to Woods' s Due Process Clause claim, he argues that the
imposition of the 25-year parole restriction amounts to a facially invalid sentence
because the components of his sentence conflict with the terms of Montana Code
Annotated§ 45-5-507(5). Woods's claim is not subject to federal habeas review
because "federal habeas corpus relief does not lie for errors of state law."

Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. 216, 219 (2011) (per curiam) (internal quotation
marks omitted). The Montana Supreme Court addressed this claim in its order
denying Woods' s petition for writ of habeas corpus and concluded that "Woods
has not demonstrated that he is incarcerated under a facially invalid sentence."

Woods v. Laughlin, No. OP 15-0277 (Mont. May 19, 2015). "[I]t is not the
province of a federal habeas court to reexamine state-court determinations on
3

state-law questions." Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68 (1991).
The Court finds no clear error with the remaining findings and analysis.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Findings and Recommendations
(Doc. 20) is ADOPTED IN FULL. Daniel J. Woods's Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus (Doc. 1) is DENIED for lack of merit and DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to enter, by
separate document, a judgment of dismissal.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is DENIED.

/-

Dated this~ day of October, 2015.

Donald W. ¥011 y, District Judge
United State's Di ict Court

L

4