United States District Court, D. Idaho
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
E. BUSH CHIEF U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
before the Court is a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
filed by Idaho state prisoner John Kim Baker
(“Petitioner” or “Baker”). The
Petition challenges Petitioner's Ada County conviction of
felony eluding, including a persistent violator enhancement.
Dkt. 3. The Petition is now fully briefed and ripe for
adjudication. The Court takes judicial notice of the records
from Petitioner's state court proceedings, which have
been lodged by Respondent. Dkt. 13; see Fed. R.
Evid. 201(b); Dawson v. Mahoney, 451 F.3d 550, 551
n.1 (9th Cir. 2006).
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) and Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 73. See Dkt. 12. Having carefully
reviewed the record in this matter, including the state court
record, the Court concludes that oral argument is
unnecessary. See D. Idaho L. Civ. R. 7.1(d).
Accordingly, the Court enters the following Order denying
habeas corpus relief.
clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, see
28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1), the following facts of
Petitioner's case, as described by the Idaho Court of
Appeals, are presumed correct:
At 12:03 a.m. on March 31, 2015, Ada County dispatch advised
of an attempt to locate a vehicle regarding a possible
aggravated assault with a firearm incident that occurred at a
hotel located in Boise. Five minutes later, three Ada County
Sheriff deputies were en route to assist. Boise Police
officers were en route at the same time to investigate the
claim of the aggravated assault. One of the deputies located
a vehicle, driven by Baker and matching the description of
the suspect vehicle, at a drive-thru of a restaurant. The
deputy pulled behind Baker after he left the drive-thru and
engaged his overhead lights. The deputy testified that the
suspect vehicle then fled, attempting to elude. Thereafter, a
chase ensued through two large store parking lots, twice
around a hotel, and then back to the store parking lots.
During this time, the deputy's flashing overhead lights
were on as well as the deputy's auxiliary front, back,
and side lights. Baker then drove through the parking lot of
a strip mall, over a curb, and started driving east in the
westbound lanes of Overland Road. Baker eventually corrected
into the eastbound lanes, turned south on Cole Road, and
entered the freeway. Both Ada County Sheriff's office and
Boise Police units were involved in the pursuit with their
lights and sirens on. The deputy in the lead position
testified that Baker was driving between 110 and 120 miles
per hour in an area where the speed limit was 65 miles per
hour. The pursuit was terminated at 12:19 a.m.
Prior to this, the deputy had requested assistance from the
Elmore County Sheriff's office to deploy spike strips in
the area near the Ada and Elmore County line. However,
because the pursuit was terminated prior to the arrival of
the deputies from Elmore County, the Elmore County deputies
did not deploy spike strips and instead returned to cover
I-84 Exits 90 and 95, because there was some concern Baker
would try to enter Mountain Home through one of these exits.
While positioned at the exits, there was some testimony that
the deputies' lights may have been deployed, though none
of the officers saw Baker's vehicle while waiting at the
exits, and they thereafter resumed their normal patrol
activities at about 1:00 a.m.
At approximately 2:30 a.m. Elmore County dispatch advised
that Baker was reported to be in Elmore County and had made
phone calls stating he was going to provoke an incident with
officers so that they would shoot him. A sergeant that had
previously covered Exit 95 started to travel west on I-84 as
dispatch advised that Baker was traveling eastbound in the
westbound lanes of I-84. The sergeant located the vehicle and
made a U-turn and deployed his emergency lights while
following Baker. Baker turned his headlights on and off to
acknowledge the sergeant. The sergeant testified that when he
approached with his emergency lights on, Baker fled eastbound
on I-84. Baker traveled between thirty-five and forty miles
per hour, significantly lower than the posted speed limit of
eighty miles per hour. The sergeant pursued Baker with his
lights and siren on; however, Baker did not stop. Spike
strips were deployed and approximately two miles after
Baker's vehicle was disabled by the spike strips, he was
State's Lodging B-4 at 1-2.
was charged with misdemeanor eluding a peace officer in
Elmore County. He pleaded guilty to that charge and was
sentenced to sixty days in jail. Id. at 2- 3.
was later charged, in Ada County, with felony eluding-the
charge challenged in the instant petition. Petitioner moved
to dismiss, arguing that the prosecution in Ada County
violated the Double Jeopardy Clause because Petitioner had
been charged with the same offense in Elmore County. The
trial court denied the motion. Petitioner pleaded guilty, to
both the eluding charge and a persistent violator
enhancement, but he reserved the right to appeal the denial
of the motion to dismiss. Petitioner was sentenced to a
unified term of ten years in prison with two years fixed.
Id. at 3. The Idaho Court of Appeals affirmed, and
the Idaho Supreme Court denied review. Id. at 3-5;
State's Lodging B-7.
federal Petition, Petitioner asserts a single claim: that his
felony eluding conviction in Ada County violates the Double
Jeopardy Clause because Petitioner was charged and convicted
of misdemeanor eluding in Elmore County. Petitioner contends
that his avoidance of the police in the early morning hours
of March 31, 2015, constituted “one continuing
event” in which he intended “to elude police for
the entire three hour time frame.” Dkt. 3 at 3-10.
Therefore, Petitioner argues, he committed a single offense
and could not constitutionally be convicted of two different
CORPUS STANDARD OF LAW
federal court may grant habeas corpus relief when it
determines that the petitioner “is in custody in
violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the
United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). If the state
court has adjudicated a claim on the merits, habeas relief is
further limited by § 2254(d), as amended by the
Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996
(“AEDPA”). Under ...