Joseph Hetzel v. Brian Cates

Good Law
United States District Court, Central District of CaliforniaApril 20, 20222:22-cv-02516California1,522 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

I.

INTRODUCTION

Petitioner Joseph Hetzel (“Petitioner”), proceeding pro se, constructively filed1 a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody (“Petition”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (“section 2254”). ECF Docket No. (“Dkt.”) 1. The Petition appears untimely. However, the Court will not make a final determination regarding whether the Petition should be dismissed without giving Petitioner an opportunity to explain why the Petition is not untimely.

II.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On February 21, 2019, Petitioner pled guilty to violations of Cal. Pen. Code §§ 207(a), 667(a)(1). Id. at 2. Because Petitioner entered into a plea bargain, he did not appeal the conviction. Id. at 3.

Petitioner indicates he filed a habeas petition in Santa Barbara County Superior Court on March 2, 2021. Id. A case search on the California Courts Appellate Courts Case Information website confirms that: (1) on July 8, 2021, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Court of Appeal, which the court denied on Ju;y 27, 2021; and (2) on August 18, 2021, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the California Supreme Court, which the court denied on…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.