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.

Limas v. Laney

United States District Court, D. Oregon

May 22, 2019

JUAN R. LIMAS, Petitioner,
v.
GARRETT LANEY, Respondent.

          Juan R. Limas Pro Se

          Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General Kristen E. Boyd, Assistant Attorney General Attorneys for Respondent

          OPINION AND ORDER

          MARCO A. HERNANDEZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Petitioner brings this habeas corpus case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging the legality of his state-court convictions from Marion County dated October 17, 2013. For the reasons that follow, the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (#2) is denied.

         BACKGROUND

         On October 4, 2013, Petitioner pleaded guilty to two counts of Recklessly Endangering Another Person, one count of Attempted murder with a Firearm, and one count of Unlawful Use of a Weapon. Respondent's Exhibit 103, p. 1. He also entered a no-contest plea to one count of Delivery of Marijuana for Consideration. Respondent's Exhibit 104, pp. 5-6. Petitioner and the State stipulated to a 130-month prison sentence, and the Marion County Circuit Court imposed the agreed-upon sentence. Respondent's Exhibits 104 & 105.

         Petitioner did not take a direct appeal and, instead, filed for post-conviction relief ("PCR") in Umatilla County where the PCR court denied relief on his claims. The Oregon Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal as meritless and therefore not appealable pursuant to ORS 138.525(3), and the Oregon Supreme Court denied review. Respondent's Exhibits 120 & 122.

         Petitioner filed this 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus case on May 23, 2018. A liberal reading of the pro se Petition suggests that Petitioner seeks to raise three claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.[1] Specifically, he claims that trial counsel was ineffective when he: (1) failed to object to Petitioner's sentence as violative of Oregon's 200% rule; (2) allowed Petitioner's plea to "rest in a significant degree on promises of the prosecutor, so that it could be said to be part of the inducement and such promises went unfulfilled;" and (3) failed to ensure that Petitioner's plea and stipulation to facts were knowing, voluntary, and intelligent.

         Respondent asks the Court to deny relief on these claims because: (1) they are not properly pled; (2) Grounds One and Two are procedurally defaulted, and Petitioner is unable to excuse the default; and (3) the PCR court's decision as to the voluntariness of Petitioner's plea (Ground Three) is correct and entitled to deference under the Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. Although Petitioner's supporting memorandum was due on April 30, he has not filed his brief nor has he communicated with the Court since paying the filing fee for this case on June 1, 2018.

         DISCUSSION

         Where the Court liberally construes the pro se Petition to state the claims identified above, it declines to dismiss the Petition for failure to meet proper pleading standards and, instead, proceeds directly to the exhaustion analysis.

         I. Exhaustion and Procedural Default

         A habeas petitioner must exhaust his claims by fairly-presenting them to the state's highest court, either through a direct appeal or collateral proceedings, before a federal court will consider the merits of those claims. Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 519 (1982). "As a general rule, a petitioner satisfies the exhaustion requirement by fairly presenting the federal claim to the appropriate state courts ... in the manner required by the state courts, thereby 'affording the state courts a meaningful opportunity to consider allegations of legal error.'" Casey v. Moore, 386 F.3d 896, 915-916 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Vasquez v. Hillery, 474 U.S. 254, 257, (1986)).

         If a habeas litigant failed to present his claims to the state courts in a procedural context in which the merits of the claims were actually considered, the claims have not been fairly presented to the state courts and are therefore not eligible for federal habeas corpus review. Edwards v. Carpenter,529 U.S. 44 6, 453 (2000); Castille v. Peoples,489 U.S. 346, 351 (1989). In this respect, a petitioner is deemed to have "procedurally defaulted" his claim if he failed to comply with a state procedural rule, or ...


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.