Summary
denying habeas petition and finding: "Petitioner engaged in two separate drug transactions, and therefore committed two criminal acts. The mere fact that the drug sales occurred within one hour of each other and involved the same type of controlled substance-cocaine, provides no basis for a double jeopardy claim."
Summary of this case from Stone v. ThomasOpinion
CASE NO.: 4:06cv59-SPM/MD.
November 7, 2007
ORDER
This cause comes before the Court for consideration of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation dated September 4, 2007 (doc. 22). Petitioner has been furnished a copy of the report and recommendation and has filed objections (doc. 26). Pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1), I have conducted a de novo review and determined that the report and recommendation should be adopted.
Petitioner's objections are based on a misunderstanding of the law, particularly in regard to the exclusionary rule, the double jeopardy proscription, and the role of the jury in making findings of fact. The report and recommendation clearly and carefully explains why Petitioner's claims lack merit. This Court has nothing to add to the well-reasoned report and recommendation.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:
1. The magistrate judge's report and recommendation (doc. 22) is ADOPTED and incorporated by reference in this order.
2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (doc. 1) is denied.
3. The clerk shall close this case.
DONE AND ORDERED.