Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Navarro-Paredes v. Premo

United States District Court, D. Oregon, Eugene Division

May 18, 2018

JOSE L. NAVARRO-PAREDES, Petitioner,
v.
JEFF PREMO, Respondent.

          FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

          YOULEE YIM YOU UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Petitioner is in the custody of the Oregon Department of Corrections. He brings this habeas corpus proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. For the reasons set forth below, petitioner's Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 2) should be DENIED.

         BACKGROUND

         I. Petitioner's Habeas Claims

         In his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, petitioner alleges three grounds for relief, each containing multiple subparts. Pet. (ECF No. 2). Respondent urges this court to deny habeas relief, arguing that Ground One is procedurally defaulted, Grounds One and Two lack merit, and Ground Three does not present a cognizable claim for relief. Resp't Resp. 2 (ECF No. 25).

         In his supporting brief, petitioner presents argument only in support of Ground Two, Subpart Four, which alleges:

Trial counsel failed to adequately confer with petitioner. Trial counsel failed to meet with petitioner a sufficient number of times to allow petitioner to gain the basic necessary understanding of his charges and sentencing exposure, and failed to utilize a minimally competent interpreter at those times when he did meet with petitioner (who is a monolingual speaker of the Spanish language). Trial counsel's failures in this regard were exacerbated by petitioner's mild mental retardation. As the result of trial counsel's deficient performance, petitioner did not accept the State's plea offers and, lacking even a rudimentary understanding of the elements of the crimes with which he was charged and his exposure at sentencing, proceeded to trial and received a 260-month sentence that was approximately twice that offered by the State prior to trial.

Pet'r Br. in Supp. 5-6 (ECF No. 36); Pet., Ex. A, 2 (ECF No. 2-1). Petitioner makes no attempt to refute respondent's argument that he is not entitled to habeas relief on his remaining claims, and states that he “submits [his unargued claims] for this Court's consideration on the existing record.” Pet'r Br. in Supp. 3.

         II. Factual and Procedural Background

         On October 9, 2009, a Multnomah County jury convicted petitioner of seven counts of Unlawful Sexual Penetration in the First Degree, six counts of Assault in the Fourth Degree, four counts of Sexual Abuse in the First Degree, one count of Sodomy in the First Degree, one count of Strangulation, and three counts of Rape in First Degree.[1] Resp't Ex 101 (ECF No. 24). The trial court sentenced petitioner to a total of 260 months imprisonment. Id.

         Petitioner directly appealed his convictions, but the Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed without opinion, and the Oregon Supreme Court denied review. Resp't Exs. 104-108; State v. Navarro-Paredes, 245 Or.App. 300, rev. denied, 351 Or. 318 (2011). Petitioner then sought state post-conviction relief (“PCR”), alleging, among others things, that trial counsel erred by failing to “adequately confer” with him regarding the charges and his sentencing exposure, resulting in his rejection of the state's plea offers. Resp't Ex. 109 at 16.

         Following an evidentiary hearing, the PCR trial judge made the following pertinent findings on the record:

There were three settlement conferences in this case in which Petitioner had the opportunity to discuss this case with the Court, his attorney, and the DA. This Court does not believe that the only conversations with Petitioner and his attorney was at settlement conference.
Petitioner says that the attorney called him names and was basically disparaging. Clearly that didn't happen in court or at settlement conference. So we know there were additional conversations. I believe there were conversations, and 1 do not believe that the ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.