Eduardo Amezcue v. J. Tim Ochoa

MEMORANDUM

Eduardo Amezeue petitions this court for a writ of habeas corpus, claiming that (1) his thirteen-year sentence, to which he stipulated in a plea agreement, violated his Sixth Amendment rights under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 580 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000) and Cunningham v. California, 549 U.S. 270 , 127 S.Ct. 856 , 166 L.Ed.2d 856 (2007), and (2) his counsel was ineffective by failing to inform Amezeue of his Cunningham rights and failing to object to the “illegal” thirteen-year sentence. We reject both claims.

Amezeue had a choice between (a) going to trial on his guilt and sentence for his original charges of murder and transportation of a controlled substance, which carried a sentence of twenty-five years to life, or (b) pleading guilty to voluntary manslaughter and assault with a firearm, both with firearm enhancements, and accepting a sentence of exactly thirteen years. He chose the latter. He cannot now better his bargain by claiming that the state trial court judge erred by imposing the upper term on the voluntary manslaughter firearm enhancement in order to arrive at the thirteen-year sentence to which he agreed. Therefore, the state…