Carbajal v. Curry et al, No. 4:2008cv04501 - Document 7 (N.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS; DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 2/4/2011. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/4/2011)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Carbajal v. Curry et al Doc. 7 1 2 3 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 8 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 No. C 08-4501 CW (PR) JOSE D. CARBAJAL, Petitioner, ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS; DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY v. B. CURRY, Warden, Respondent. 12 / 13 14 On September 25, 2008, Petitioner Jose D. Carbajal filed a 15 petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to title 28 U.S.C. 16 § 2254, challenging as a violation of his constitutional rights the 17 second denial of parole by the California Board of Parole Hearings 18 (Board) on August 1, 2006. 19 order to show cause why the writ should not be granted. 20 filed an answer on October 14, 2009. 21 on November 19, 2009. 22 23 24 25 On June 16, 2009, the Court issued an Respondent Petitioner filed a traverse Having considered all of the papers filed by the parties, the Court DENIES the petition. BACKGROUND On November 10, 1987, Petitioner plead guilty to second degree 26 murder and personal use of a firearm, two counts of assault with a 27 deadly weapon and personal use of a firearm, and robbery and 28 Dockets.Justia.com 1 personal use of a firearm. (Petition, Ex. B at 12-15.) 2 18, 1987, the court sentenced Petitioner to a total of twenty-five 3 years to life plus four months. 4 2006, the Board denied parole. 5 court denied Petitioner's petition. 6 Court denial.) 7 summarily denied Petitioner's state habeas petition. 8 Ex. L.) 9 Petitioner's state habeas petition. (Id.) United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 13 On August 1, On October 29, 2007, the superior (Petition, Ex. L, Superior On January 17, 2008, the California Court of Appeal (Petition, On July 23, 2008, the California Supreme Court denied Petitioner filed the instant petition on February 25, 2008. 11 12 (Petition, Ex. C.) On December DISCUSSION I. Standard of Review A district court may not grant a petition challenging a state 14 conviction or sentence on the basis of a claim that was reviewed on 15 the merits in state court unless the state court's adjudication of 16 the claim: "(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or 17 involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established 18 Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United 19 States; or (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an 20 unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence 21 presented in the State court proceeding." 22 first prong applies both to questions of law and to mixed questions 23 of law and fact, Williams (Terry) v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 407-09 24 (2000), while the second prong applies to decisions based on 25 factual determinations, Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 340 26 (2003). 27 28 28 U.S.C. 2254(d). The A state court decision is “contrary to” Supreme Court authority, that is, falls under the first clause of § 2254(d)(1), 2 1 only if “the state court arrives at a conclusion opposite to that 2 reached by [the Supreme] Court on a question of law or if the state 3 court decides a case differently than [the Supreme] Court has on a 4 set of materially indistinguishable facts.” 5 U.S. at 412-13. 6 application of” Supreme Court authority, falling under the second 7 clause of § 2254(d)(1), if it correctly identifies the governing 8 legal principle from the Supreme Court’s decisions but 9 “unreasonably applies that principle to the facts of the prisoner’s Williams (Terry), 529 A state court decision is an “unreasonable United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 case.” 11 issue the writ “simply because that court concludes in its 12 independent judgment that the relevant state-court decision applied 13 clearly established federal law erroneously or incorrectly.” 14 at 411. 15 to support granting the writ. 16 II. Id. at 413. The federal court on habeas review may not Id. Rather, the application must be “objectively unreasonable” See id. at 409. Analysis 17 Petitioner argues that: (1) he was denied due process because 18 the Board's decision was not supported by some evidence that he is 19 currently dangerous, and (2) the Deputy District Attorney violated 20 the plea agreement by arguing that the commitment offense was 21 premeditated. 22 A. 23 "There is no right under the Federal Constitution to be 24 conditionally released before the expiration of a valid sentence, 25 and the States are under no duty to offer parole to their 26 prisoners." 27 Complex, 442 U. S. 1, 7 (1979). 28 liberty interest, the Due Process Clause requires fair procedures Due Process Claim Greenholtz v. Inmates of Neb. Penal and Correctional "When, however, a State creates a 3 1 for its vindication -- and federal courts will review the 2 application of those constitutionally required procedures." 3 Swarthout v. Cooke, No. 10-333, 2011 WL 197627, *2 (U.S. January 4 24, 2011) (per curiam). 5 Id. 6 opportunity to be heard and [is] provided a statement of the 7 reasons why." 8 Greenholtz, 442 U.S. at 16. 9 The procedures required are "minimal." A prisoner receives adequate process when "he [is] allowed an Id. "The Constitution does not require more." In the instant matter, Petitioner received at least the United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 required amount of process. 11 to speak at his parole hearing and to contest the evidence against 12 him, that he received access to his records in advance, and that he 13 was notified as to the reasons parole was denied. 14 that Petitioner received these procedural requirements, this 15 federal habeas court's inquiry is at an end. 16 197627, at *3. 17 not comply with California's "some evidence" rule fails to state a 18 cognizable claim for federal habeas relief. The record shows that he was allowed Having found Cooke, 2011 WL Petitioner's claim that the Board's decision did See id. 19 B. 20 The fundamental fairness protected by the Due Process Clause Breach of Plea Agreement claim 21 requires that promises made during plea bargaining and in analogous 22 contexts be respected; however, this rule is subject to two 23 conditions: the promisor must be authorized to make the promise and 24 the defendant must rely to his detriment on the promise. 25 Johnson v. Lumpkin, 769 F.2d 630, 633 (9th Cir. 1985). 26 plea rests in any significant degree on a promise or agreement of 27 the prosecutor, so that it can be said to be a part of the 28 inducement or consideration, such promise must be fulfilled.” 4 See “[W]hen a 1 Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 262 (1971). 2 Petitioner argues that the Deputy District Attorney breached 3 his plea agreement by opining at the parole suitability hearing 4 that his crime was premeditated. 5 continues Petitioner, the Board lengthened Petitioner's sentence. 6 (Id.) 7 (Petition at 22.) As a result, Respondent does not address this claim. At the plea colloquy, it was apparent that the terms of the 8 plea agreement were that, in exchange for Petitioner's plea of 9 guilty, the State would reduce the first degree murder charge to United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 second degree murder. 11 Petitioner agreed to plead guilty to second degree murder with the 12 personal use of a firearm, two counts of assault with a deadly 13 weapon with the personal use of a firearm, and robbery with the 14 personal use of a firearm. 15 that by pleading guilty to the stated charges, he could conceivably 16 be incarcerated in prison for life. 17 (Petition, Ex. B at 4.) (Id. at 4-5.) Specifically, Petitioner understood (Id. at 10.) While it is true that the Deputy District Attorney described 18 Petitioner's commitment offense as a "premeditated murder" (Tr. at 19 76-77), there is no evidence that the description of Petitioner's 20 crime violated any promise within the plea agreement. 21 States v. Striech, 560 F.3d 926, 929-30 (9th Cir. 2009) 22 (recognizing that if the terms of a plea agreement have a clear and 23 unambiguous meaning, the court does not look to extrinsic 24 evidence). 25 Board members appeared to rely on the Deputy District Attorney's 26 statements. 27 prosecutor breached the plea agreement. 28 entitled to habeas relief on this claim. Cf. United Further, in denying Petitioner parole, none of the Petitioner points to no persuasive evidence that the 5 Accordingly, he is not 1 CONCLUSION 2 3 For the foregoing reasons, the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED. 4 A certificate of appealability will not issue. Reasonable 5 jurists would not "find the district court's assessment of the 6 constitutional claims debatable or wrong." 7 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 8 appealability from the Court of Appeals. 9 Slack v. McDaniel, 529 Petitioner may seek a certificate of The Clerk of Court shall terminate all pending motions as United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 moot, enter judgment in accordance with this order and close the 11 file. 12 13 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 2/4/2011 CLAUDIA WILKEN United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 2 3 JOSE D. CARBAJAL, Case Number: CV08-04501 CW 4 Plaintiff, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 5 v. 6 B. CURRY et al, 7 Defendant. 8 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 12 / I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. That on February 4, 2011, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office. 13 14 16 Jose D. Carbajal D74035 P.O. Box 689 - YW315L Soledad, CA 93960-0684 17 Dated: February 4, 2011 15 18 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk By: Nikki Riley, Deputy Clerk 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 7
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
