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.

Ramsey v. Blades

United States District Court, D. Idaho

January 2, 2018

JAMES BUTLER RAMSEY, Petitioner,
v.
RANDY BLADES, Respondent. v.

          MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER

          Edward J. Lodge, United States District Judge.

         Pending before the Court is a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Idaho state prisoner James Butler Ramsey (“Petitioner”), challenging Petitioner's Ada County conviction for robbery.[1] (Dkt. 1.) Respondent has filed a Motion for Summary Dismissal, arguing that the Petition is barred by the one-year statute of limitations and that some of Petitioner's claims are procedurally defaulted or noncognizable. (Dkt. 13.) Petitioner did not respond to the Motion, which is now ripe for adjudication.

         The Court takes judicial notice of the records from Petitioner's state court proceedings, which have been lodged by Respondent. (Dkt. 12.) See Fed. R. Evid. 201; Dawson v Mahoney, 451 F.3d 550, 551 n.1 (9th Cir. 2006).

         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 the Motion and dismissing the Petition with prejudice as untimely.[2]

         BACKGROUND

         In the Fourth Judicial District in Ada County, Idaho, Petitioner pleaded guilty to robbery and other crimes and was sentenced to life in prison with twenty years fixed on the robbery count. (State's Lodging B-4.) Petitioner filed a direct appeal, and the Idaho Court of Appeals affirmed on April 22, 2003. (Id.) Petitioner did not file a petition for review with the Idaho Supreme Court. (See State's Lodging B-5.)

         On April 21, 2004, Petitioner, through counsel, filed a petition for post-conviction relief in state court. (State's Lodging C-1 at 4-6.) The state district court dismissed the petition, and the Idaho Court of Appeals affirmed. (Id. at 39-44; D-4.) Petitioner's petition for review was denied, and the Idaho Supreme Court issued the remittitur on March 28, 2007. (State's Lodging D-7; D-8.)

         On November 25, 2009, at the earliest, [3] Petitioner filed a pro se successive post-conviction petition. (State's Lodging E-1 at 4-16.) The trial court dismissed the successive petition, the Idaho Court of Appeals affirmed, and Petitioner did not file a petition for review. (Id. at 83-92; F-6; see also F-7.)

         On December 4, 2014, at the earliest, Ramsey filed a motion for reduction of sentence under Idaho Criminal Rule 35. (State's Lodging G-1 at 74-83.) The trial court denied the motion. (Id. at 93-94.) The Idaho Court of Appeals affirmed, and the Idaho Supreme Court denied review. (State's Lodging H-4; H-6.)

         Petitioner filed his Petition in this Court, at the earliest, on December 6, 2016.[4]

         The Court has construed the Petition as asserting the following claims:

Claim 1: Petitioner was denied his Sixth Amendment right to counsel, or to the effective assistance of counsel, on direct appeal. Petitioner also challenges the Idaho Supreme Court's practice of not accepting pro se filings when the filing party is represented by counsel, which appears to be a claim that Petitioner is entitled to hybrid representation on direct appeal.
Claim 2: The fixed portion of Petitioner's sentence is excessive. (This appears to be an Eighth Amendment claim.)
Claim 3: Petitioner was denied counsel during his Rule 35 proceedings.
Claim 4: Petitioner was deprived of his right to equal protection when the state court “fail[ed] to follow it's [sic] own laws.” Petitioner also alleges that he has been deprived of his right to access the courts.

         (Initial Review Order, Dkt. 5, at 2.) Petitioner has not objected to this construction.

         The Court previously reviewed the Petition and allowed Petitioner to proceed on his claims to the extent those claims “(1) are cognizable in a federal habeas corpus action, (2) were timely filed in this Court, and (3) were either properly exhausted in state court or subject to a ...


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.