Charles Edward Baines v. Theresa Cisneros

Case 2:22-cv-05123-FMO-SK Document Filed 08/08/22 Page lof3 Page ID #:65 [4] 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9! CHARLES EDWARD BAINES, ) Case No. CV 22-05123-FMO (SK) 10 Petitioner, 11 V. ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR LACK ) OF JURISDICTION 12] THERESA CISNEROS, ) 13 Respondent. [14] 15 Petitioner is a California state inmate convicted nearly ten years ago of robbery crimes and sentenced with firearm, gang, and recidivism enhancements under state law. (ECF 1 at 25-44). 17|| Years later, California enacted various reforms providing state trial judges more discretion when 18] imposing some of those sentencing enhancements. See S.B. 620 (Cal. 2017) (amending Penal 19 Code §§ 12022.5-12022.53); S.B. 1393 (Cal. 2018) (amending Penal Code §§ 667, 1385); S.B. 20] 81 (Cal. 2021) (amending § 1385 again). Relying on those newly enacted state criminal laws, 21] Petitioner unsuccessfully sought a reduced sentence from the trial court and through state habeas proceedings throughout 2021 and 2022. (ECF 1 at 2-8, 47-54). He now seeks federal habeas 23], relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 claiming that the California state courts erred by declining to strike 24] (or to order the striking of) one or more of his enhancements under the new state reforms. (ECF □□□ 1 at 15-22). The federal petition must be dismissed, however, because § 2254 confers no 26]| jurisdiction to review whether state courts misapplied their own state's sentencing laws. 27 Federal habeas relief is unavailable for "errors of state law." Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. 28 ]| 216,219 (2011). In fact, a state court's interpretation of its own state's laws binds federal habeas Case 2:22-cv-05123-FMO-SK Document 5 Filed 08/08/22 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #:66 1 courts. See Bradshaw v. Richey, 546 U.S. 74, 76 (2005). The Court thus has no authority under 2 § 2254 to second-guess how the California state courts decided Petitioner's requests for 3 resentencing or for a reduced sentence. See Cole v. Sullivan, 480 F. Supp. 3d 1089 , 1097 (C.D. [4] Cal. 2020 ). Petitioner cannot avoid this outcome by alleging in conclusory terms, as he does here, 5 that the state courts violated due process. (ECF 1 at 19-20). That is not enough to "transform a 6 state-law issue into a federal one." Langford v. Day, 110 F.3d 1380, 1389 (9th Cir. 1996). Nor 7 can Petitioner circumvent this jurisdictional bar by claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. (ECF 8 1 at 13). Even if state law might permit (or even require) appointment of counsel in certain 9 resentencing proceedings, see, e.g., Cal. Penal Code § 1170.95 , the Sixth Amendment 10 guarantees no such right under federal law. See Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 , 756-57 11 (1991); Martinez v. Koenig, 2021 WL 8015539 , at *4 (C.D. Cal. 2021). 12 In any event, none of Petitioner's state law challenges has merit. The newly enacted 13 reforms in California's sentencing statutes do not apply retroactively to convictions-like 14 Petitioner's-that were final before those statutes passed. See People v. Hernandez, 34 Cal. App. 15 5th 323, 326 (2019) (S.B. 620 not retroactive); People v. Alexander, 45 Cal. App. 5th 341 , 343 16 (2020) (S.B. 1393 not retroactive); Cal. Penal Code § 1385 (applicable, as amended by S.B. 81, 17 only to sentencings "after January 1, 2022"). Thus, even if Petitioner's state law claims were 18 construed as cognizable federal due process claims, he cannot prove that there were any 19 sentencing errors to begin with, much less an error "so arbitrary or capricious as to constitute an 20 independent due process" violation. Richmond v. Lewis, 506 U.S. 40, 50 (1992). 21 Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED THAT: 22 1. The petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Leave to 23 amend is denied as futile because Petitioner can state no cognizable federal claim based on 24 California's newly enacted sentencing laws. Judgment will thus be entered dismissing this action 25 with prejudice. 26 2. A certificate of appealability is denied because Petitioner has not made a substantial 27 showing of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable [2] Case 2:22-cv-05123-FMO-SK Document 5 Filed 08/08/22 Page 3 of 3 Page ID #:67 1 whether the Court is correct in its procedural rulings. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (c)(2); Fed. R. App. 2 P. 22 (b); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84 (2000). 3 Dated this 8th day of August, 2022. [4] 5 /s/ Fernando M. Olguin 6 United States District Judge