1 2

3

4 5 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8

9 10 HORACIO CRUZ AMAYA, also Case No. 2:23-cv-00559-WLH-SSC 11 known as AARON ROJAS, 12 Petitioner,

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY

13 v. PETITION FOR WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS SHOULD NOT

14 L. A. MARTINEZ,

BE DISMISSED

15 Respondent. 16 17 18 In his petition for habeas corpus, state prisoner Horacio Cruz 19 Amaya challenges his indeterminate sentence as unconstitutional and 20 illegal under California law. The Court has reviewed the petition as 21 required by federal procedure and finds that the state-sentencing errors 22 alleged do not present a federal question and are thus not cognizable on 23 habeas review, and further that they plainly lack merit. Petitioner is 24 ordered to show cause in writing why his petition should not be 25 dismissed. 26 27 1 I 2 On September 13, 2012, a Los Angeles County Superior Court jury 3 convicted Petitioner1 of second-degree murder (Cal. Penal Code 4 § 187(a)) and evading an officer causing death (Cal. Veh. Code 5 § 2800.3(b)). (ECF 1 at 25–26.) Petitioner admitted to having served 6 three prior prison terms before this conviction, triggering the 7 sentencing requirements of Section 667.5(b) of the California Penal 8 Code. People v. Rojas, No. B245433, 2014 WL 645249, at *2 (Cal. App. 9 Feb. 20, 2014).2 On November 1, 2012, Petitioner was sentenced to an 10 aggregate term of 18 years to life in state prison, consisting of an 11 indeterminate 15-years-to-life term for the murder conviction and three 12 consecutive one-year enhancements pursuant to Section 667.5(b). (ECF 13 1 at 25–27.) On direct appeal, Petitioner challenged only the 14 calculation of his presentence custody credits. Rojas, 2014 WL 645249, 15 at *1. 16 Approximately ten years after his conviction and sentence, 17 Petitioner unsuccessfully moved in the Los Angeles County Superior 18 Court for a modification of his sentence. (ECF 1 at 9–10, 15–23); see 19 also Los Angeles County Superior Court Online Criminal Case 20 Summary, https://www.lacourt.org/criminalcasesummary/ui/ (agree to 21 disclaimer; then search case number PA06800; select Defendant Aaron 22 1 Petitioner’s aliases as found in the record before the Court 23 include: Aaron Rojas, Arron Roias, Amaya Horacio, Horacio Cruz Amaya, Aaron Esqueda Rojas, and Victor Martinez. (ECF 1 at 1, 8–9, 24 13, 15–16, 23, 25–27, 44–45.) 25 2 The Court takes judicial notice of Petitioner’s state court records, including the California Court of Appeal’s decision on direct review of Petitioner’s judgment of conviction and the state courts’ docket 26 information. See Fed. R. Evid. 201(b); Porter v. Ollison, 620 F.3d 952, 955 n.1 (9th Cir. 2010) (taking judicial notice of state court docket and 27 pleading that included as attachment the state court’s decision on direct 1 Esqueda Rojas, General Jurisdiction; select Events; see entries for June 2 22, 2022 and August 15, 2022) (last visited July 27, 2023). His motion 3 argued that his indeterminate sentence was unlawful under California 4 law. (ECF at 15–23.) 5 The California Court of Appeal summarily denied a petition for 6 writ of mandate challenging the Superior Court’s denial of his 7 requested sentencing modification. See California Appellate Courts 8 Case Information, https://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov (select Second 9 Appellate District; then search case number B323511) (last visited July 10 27, 2023). The California Supreme Court summarily denied a petition 11 for review of the California Court of Appeal’s denial. Id. (select 12 Supreme Court; then search case number S277038) (last visited July 13 27, 2023). 14 On January 23, 2023, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas 15 Corpus by a Person in State Custody pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 16 (ECF 1.) He states two grounds for relief. First, Petitioner challenges 17 the “[u]nauthorized Indeterminate Sentence pursuant to [California 18 Penal Code] § 187(a) of 15 [years] to life based on the fact that the 19 Indeterminate Sentencing Law was repealed,” and further argues that 20 “both terms of 15 years to life are two separate and distinct terms that 21 constitute dual punishment for the same crime in direct violation of 22 [California Penal Code] § 654.” (Id. at 5, 9–13.) This is the same claim 23 raised in his motion for resentencing before the Superior Court. 24 Second, and relatedly, Petitioner argues his continued imprisonment 25 based on an unlawful indeterminate sentence amounts to “[u]nlawful 26 confinement in direct violation of [California Penal Code] § 236 False 27 Imprisonment.” (Id. at 5, 10, 12.) 1 II 2 Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United 3 States District Courts requires the district court to examine newly filed 4 petitions and to dismiss them where it is plain that a petitioner is not 5 entitled to relief. Clayton v. Biter, 868 F.3d 840, 845–46 (9th Cir. 2017). 6 Here, the petition fails for several reasons. 7 A 8 The petition alleges only state-law and no federal-law violations. 9 Federal habeas review is limited to deciding whether a judgment 10 violates the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. Estelle 11 v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 68 (1991). Generally, matters relating solely to 12 the interpretation or application of state law, particularly state 13 sentencing law, are not cognizable on federal habeas review. See id. at 14 67–68 (federal habeas relief unavailable for errors of state law); see also 15 Souch v. Schaivo, 289 F.3d 616, 623 (9th Cir. 2002) (state court’s 16 alleged misapplication of state sentencing law cannot form the basis of 17 a federal habeas claim); Rhoades v. Henry, 611 F.3d 1133, 1142 (9th 18 Cir. 2010) (considering argument that sentencing judge violated state 19 law and finding “violations of state law are not cognizable on federal 20 habeas review”). 21 To raise a cognizable federal habeas claim based on a purported 22 state sentencing error, a petitioner must show that the error was “so 23 arbitrary or capricious as to constitute an independent due 24 process . . . violation.” Lewis v. Jeffers, 497 U.S. 764, 780 (1990); 25 Christian v. Rhode, 41 F.3d 461, 469 (9th Cir. 1994) (“Absent a showing 26 of fundamental unfairness, a state court’s misapplication of its own 27 sentencing laws does not justify federal habeas relief.”). Importantly, a 1 federal one merely by asserting a violation of due process.” Langford v. 2 Day, 110 F.3d 1380, 1389 (9th Cir. 1996). 3 Although Petitioner asserts that his indeterminate sentence is 4 “unconstitutional,” the petition, like Petitioner’s state-court motion for 5 modification of sentence, is based entirely on the purported 6 misapplication of California sentencing laws. (ECF 1 at 5, 9–13, 15–22.) 7 The petition does not invoke any federal basis for relief and does not 8 show that any fundamental unfairness occurred based on the state 9 court’s application of its sentencing laws. Thus, the petition fails to 10 present a federal question and the claims are not cognizable. 11 B 12 Even if the Court could find any of Petitioner’s claims cognizable, 13 his claims are based solely on his misunderstanding of state law. 14 Contrary to Petitioner’s contention, California Senate Bill 42, also 15 known as the Uniform Determinate Sentencing Act of 1976, did not 16 eliminate all indeterminate sentences in California. See In re Monigold, 17 139 Cal. App. 3d 485, 491 (1983) (“[W]ith the original enactment of the 18 [Uniform Determinate Sentencing Act] the Legislature provided for two 19 classes of prisoners, those sentenced to determinate terms under [the 20 determinate sentencing scheme], and those sentenced to indeterminate 21 terms [for life-sentence crimes] under section 1168.”). Moreover, in 22 1978, long before Petitioner’s 2012 conviction and sentence for second- 23 degree murder, Section 190 of the California Penal Code was enacted, 24 thereby increasing the punishment for second-degree murder “from a 25 determinate term of five, six or seven years to an indeterminate term of 26 fifteen years to life.” Cal. Penal Code § 190(a); Monigold, 139 Cal. App. 27 3d at 490 (“By an initiative measure adopted at the November 7, 1978, 1 increased from a determinate term of five, six or seven years to an 2 indeterminate term of fifteen years to life.”); see also In re Morrall, 102 3 Cal. App. 4th 280, 288 (2002) (“[T]he Legislature excluded certain 4 crimes, such as the second degree murder in this case, from the 5 determinate sentencing scheme applicable to other offenses.”). 6 Petitioner’s claim that his indeterminate sentence violates state 7 law because it amounts to multiple punishments for the same crime 8 similarly rests on a misunderstanding of California law. Section 654 of 9 the California Penal Code prohibits multiple punishments for the same 10 criminal act pursuant to different provisions of law. Cal. Penal Code 11 § 654(a). Petitioner’s indeterminate sentence, however, does not violate 12 Section 654 because his sentence is a single term of imprisonment 13 imposed under a single provision of law, that is, Section 190 of the 14 California Penal Code. 15 Ultimately, Petitioner received an indeterminate 15-years-to-life 16 sentence for his second-degree murder conviction as prescribed by 17 California law. Thus, it appears from the face of the petition that 18 Petitioner cannot prove any sentencing error, much less an error “so 19 arbitrary or capricious as to constitute an independent due process” 20 violation. See Richmond v. Lewis, 506 U.S. 40, 50 (1992). 21 ORDER 22 Because the petition does not appear to present any claims 23 cognizable on federal habeas review, and any potentially cognizable 24 claims plainly lack merit, the Court orders Petitioner to show cause, no 25 later than August 28, 2023, why the Court should not recommend 26 dismissal of the petition for the reasons set forth above. 27 l If Petitioner does not file a timely response to this Order to 2 | Show Cause, the magistrate judge will recommend that the 3 | Court dismiss the petition for failure to prosecute and/or 4 | comply with court orders. 5 6 7 Dated: July 27, 2023 8 9 Zo 10 HONORABLE STEPHANIE S. CHRISTENSEN 11 United States Magistrate Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28