Touch v. Mills
Filing
41
ORDER: Adopting Findings and Recommendation 37 . The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is Denied. Objections to the Findings and Recommendation are overruled. The petition advanced by Jason M. Touch is DISMISSED with prejudice. Signed on 11/23/09 by Judge Ancer L. Haggerty. (mkk)
<![CDATA[
FILU09 OOY' 23120)JSoc-{JP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT C O U R T F O R T H E D I S T R I C T OF O R E G O N J A S O N M. TOUCH, Petitioner, C i v i l No. 0 7 - 1 8 9 3 - S T ORDER
v.
D O N MILLS, Respondent.
H A G G E R T Y , D i s t r i c t Judge: Magistrate Judge Stewart issued a Findings and Recommendation [37] recommending that the Petition for Writ o f Habeas Corpus [2] b e denied. Objections to portions o f t h e Findings a n d R e c o m m e n d a t i o n w e r e filed b y p l a i n t i f f . T h e m a t t e r w a s t h e n r e f e r r e d t o t h i s c o u r t for review. W h e n a p a r t y objects t o a n y p o r t i o n o f t h e Magistrate Judge's Findings a n d R e c o m m e n d a t i o n , t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t m u s t m a k e a de n o v o d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h a t p o r t i o n o f t h e Magistrate's report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(IXB); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Bus.
Mach., Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981). P l a i n t i f f filed objections i n a timely manner.
T h e court has given the file o f this case a de novo review, carefully reviewing t h e Findings and R e c o m m e n d a t i o n , p l a i n t i f f s o b j e c t i o n s , a n d t h e R e c o r d o f t h e case.
1 --ORDER
BACKGROUND
M a g i s t r a t e J u d g e Stewart p r o v i d e d a t h o r o u g h analysis o f t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s presented. T h e factual b a c k g r o u n d n e e d b e o n l y s u m m a r i z e d h e r e . P e t i t i o n e r w a s p r o s e c u t e d f o r h i s involvement i n a n u m b e r o f armed robberies i n t h e metropolitan Portland area. As a result, p e t i t i o n e r w a s c h a r g e d w i t h t w e n t y - t w o c r i m e s b y two i n d i c t m e n t s t h a t w e r e c o n s o l i d a t e d for trial. H e w a s charged w i t h n i n e counts o f R o b b e r y i n t h e F i r s t D e g r e e w i t h a Firearm, o n e count o f Assault i n t h e Second Degree w i t h a Firearm, and t w e l v e counts ofK.idnapping i n t h e Second Degree. These crimes w e r e subject to mandatory m i n i m u m sentences pursuant to O r e g o n s t a t u t e ( O . R . S . 1 3 7 . 7 0 0 ; r e f e r r e d t o as " M e a s u r e I I s e n t e n c e s " ) . A t t h e s e c o n d d a y o f trial, c o u n s e l for p e t i t i o n e r i n f o r m e d t h e c o u r t t h a t p e t i t i o n e r w o u l d like to change his pleas pursuant to a contract p l e a after having a n opportunity to inquire about t h e m a x i m u m s e n t e n c i n g e x p o s u r e h e faced i f c o n v i c t e d a t trial, a n d h o w c o n s e c u t i v e s e n t e n c i n g m i g h t a p p l y i n h i s case. T h e c o u r t a n d t h e p a r t i e s a d d r e s s e d t h e c h a r g e s i n d i v i d u a l l y a n d concluded that petitioner faced 143 years o f Measure 11 t i m e without the possibility o f parole i f c o n v i c t e d o n all counts. T h e c o u r t a d v i s e d p e t i t i o n e r that t h e s e n t e n c e s c o u l d b e r u n c o n s e c u t i v e l y , a n d r e f u s e d to d i s c l o s e w h i c h s e n t e n c e s m i g h t r u n c o n s e c u t i v e l y i f p e t i t i o n e r w e r e convicted. P e t i t i o n e r p l e d g u i l t y to A t t e m p t e d R o b b e r y i n t h e F i r s t D e g r e e w i t h a F i r e a r m a n d t w o c o u n t s o f R o b b e r y i n t h e F i r s t D e g r e e a n d , as r e q u i r e d b y t h e c o n t r a c t p l e a , t h e t r i a l c o u r t sentenced petitioner to consecutive sentences totaling 250 months i n prison. T h e remaining c h a r g e s w e r e dismissed. F i n d i n g s a n d R e c o m m e n d a t i o n a t 5 ( c i t a t i o n s o m i t t e d ) .
2 -- O R D E R
Petitioner's direct appeal w a s denied w h e n the Oregon C o u r t o f Appeals granted the S t a t e ' s M o t i o n for S u m m a r y A f f i n n a n c e . P e t i t i o n e r ' s r e q u e s t f o r p o s t - c o n v i c t i o n r e l i e f ( P C R ) i n U m a t i l l a C o u n t y w a s denied. T h e O r e g o n C o u r t o f A p p e a l s s u m m a r i l y a f f i n n e d t h e l o w e r c o u r t without issuing a written opinion, and the Oregon Supreme Court denied review. Touch v.
Schiedler, 199 Or. App. 416, 112 P.3d 1203 (2003), rev. denied, 162 P . 3 d 988 (Or. 2007).
P e t i t i o n e r t h e n filed t h i s federal h a b e a s c o r p u s c a s e , a l l e g i n g t h a t h i s t r i a l c o u n s e l w a s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y i n e f f e c t i v e b e c a u s e h e c o e r c e d p e t i t i o n e r i n t o p l e a d i n g guilty.
ANALYSIS
T h e F i n d i n g s a n d R e c o m m e n d a t i o n concluded "that d e f e n s e counsel e a r n e s t l y tested t h e prosecution's case and its witnesses, b u t t h e evidence against petitioner was so great that any defense he could h a v e b e e n presented would realistically [not] have b e e n as beneficial to petitioner as his contract plea." Findings a n d Recommendation at 17. T h e M a g i s t r a t e J u d g e r e v i e w e d t h e facts t h a t p e t i t i o n e r ' s c r i m e s " i n c l u d e d f o u r s e p a r a t e incidents i n c l u d i n g m a n y different victims w h i c h allowed t h e i m p o s i t i o n o f m u l t i p l e c o n s e c u t i v e Measure 11 sentences pursuant to ORS 137.123," and concluded that "counsel's p e r f o n n a n c e did n o t fall b e l o w a n objective standard o f reasonableness w h e n h e advised petitioner to e n t e r a guilty p l e a o n the basis that h e would be unable to present a viable defense." ld. P e t i t i o n e r " o b j e c t s t o t h e factual f i n d i n g s m a d e b y t h e [ M ] a g i s t r a t e [ J ] u d g e " a n d " o b j e c t s to the recommendation that his petition b e denied and t h e case b e dismissed with prejudice." Objections at 1. After a de novo review o f t h e case, this court concludes that t h e Findings and R e c o m m e n d a t i o n ' s f a c t u a l f i n d i n g s w e r e p r o p e r . T h e r e c o m m e n d a t i o n t o d e n y t h e p e t i t i o n is adopted.
3 -- O R D E R
CONCLUSION
T h e F i n d i n g s a n d R e c o n u n e n d a t i o n [37] i s A D O P T E D . T h e P e t i t i o n f o r W r i t o f H a b e a s Corpus [2] is denied. Objections to the Findings and R e c o n u n e n d a t i o n [39] a r e overruled. T h e p e t i t i o n a d v a n c e d b y J a s o n M . T o u c h is d i s m i s s e d . T h i s d i s m i s s a l i s o r d e r e d w i t h p r e j u d i c e .
IT IS SO ORDERED.
D a t e d t h i s $ d a y o f N o v e m b e r t 2009.
~.tW
A n c e r L. H a g g
United States District Judge
4 -- O R D E R
]]>
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?
