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.

Taylor v. Carlin

United States District Court, D. Idaho

August 8, 2016

BRIAN KENNETH TAYLOR, Petitioner,
v.
TEREMA CARLIN, Respondent.

          MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER

          Hon. Ronald E. Bush United States Magistrate Judge.

         Pending before the Court is Petitioner Brian Kenneth Taylor’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (Dkt. 1.) Respondent has filed a Motion for Summary Dismissal, arguing that the only claim in the Petition is procedurally defaulted. (Dkt. 12.) The Motion is now ripe for adjudication. (Dkt. 14, 16.)

         The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge to conduct all proceedings in this case in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). (Dkt. 10.) Having carefully reviewed the record, including the state court record, the Court finds that the parties have adequately presented the facts and legal arguments in the briefs and record and that oral argument is unnecessary. See D. Idaho L. Civ. R. 7.1(d). Accordingly, the Court enters the following Order granting Respondent’s Motion and dismissing this case with prejudice.

         BACKGROUND

         The facts underlying Petitioner’s conviction are set forth clearly and accurately in State v. Taylor, Docket No. 41888, Op. 399 (Idaho Ct. App. March 9, 2015) (unpublished), which is contained in the record at State’s Lodging B-4. The facts will not be repeated here except as necessary to explain the Court’s decision.

         Petitioner entered a conditional guilty plea in the Second Judicial District in Latah County, Idaho, to four counts of sexual abuse of child under the age of sixteen, four counts of lewd conduct with a child under the age of sixteen, and one count of sexual exploitation of a child, in violation of Idaho Code §§ 18-1506(1), 18-1508, and 18-1507(2)(b). (State’s Lodging B-4 at 1.) Petitioner received a unified sentence of life imprisonment with 25 years fixed. (Id. at 7.)

         Petitioner appealed, arguing, in relevant part, that the trial court should have granted his motion to suppress camera memory cards that were found in Petitioner’s home. Petitioner claimed that, during the search, the police coerced him into providing statements disclosing the location of the memory cards. (State’s Lodging B-2.) The Idaho Court of Appeals affirmed. (State’s Lodging B-4.) Petitioner did not file a petition for review with the Idaho Supreme Court, and the Idaho Court of Appeals issued its remittitur. (State’s Lodging B-5.)

         In the instant federal habeas corpus petition, Petitioner asserts a single claim-that the trial court should have granted his motion to suppress evidence because Petitioner’s statements as to where to find the memory cards were involuntary in violation of the Fifth Amendment. (Dkt. 1 at 6-9.)

         DISCUSSION

         In the Motion for Summary Dismissal, Respondent argues that Petitioner’s claim is procedurally defaulted.

         1. Standards of Law

         Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases authorizes the Court to summarily dismiss a petition for writ of habeas corpus when “it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” The Court may also take judicial notice of relevant state court records in determining whether to dismiss a petition.[1] Fed.R.Evid. 201(b); Dawson v Mahoney, 451 F.3d 550, 551 (9th Cir. 2006). Where appropriate, a respondent may file a motion for summary dismissal, rather than an answer. White v. Lewis, 874 F.2d 599, 602 (9th Cir. 1989).

         A habeas petitioner must exhaust his or her remedies in the state courts before a federal court can grant relief on constitutional claims. O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 842 (1999). To do so, the petitioner must invoke one complete round of the state’s established appellate review process, fairly presenting all constitutional claims to the state courts so that they have a full and fair opportunity to correct alleged constitutional errors at each level of appellate review. Id. at 845. “Fair presentation” requires a petitioner to describe both the operative facts and the legal theories upon which the federal claim is based. Gray v. Netherland, 518 U.S. 152, 162-63 (1996).

         In a state that has the possibility of discretionary review in the highest appellate court, like Idaho, the petitioner must have presented all of his federal claims at least in a petition seeking review before that court. O’Sullivan, 526 U.S. at 847. In Idaho, all appeals from district courts initially go to the Idaho Supreme Court. That court then assigns certain cases to the Idaho Court of Appeals, which is required to decide all such assigned cases. See Idaho App. R. 108. Generally, cases that are assigned to the court of appeals are those “involv[ing] existing legal principles” as opposed to cases of first impression. Id. Once the Idaho Court of Appeals decides an assigned case, then the losing party may file a petition for review with the Idaho Supreme Court, which ...


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.