From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

NINO v. FLANNIGAN

United States District Court, D. Arizona
May 14, 2007
2:04-cv-02298-JWS (D. Ariz. May. 14, 2007)

Summary

In Nino v. Flannigan, No. 2:04cv2298-JWS (CRP), 2007 WL 1412493 (D.Ariz., May 14, 2007), the court found petitioner's aggravated sentence comported with Blakely because one of the aggravating factors, a prior conviction, was Blakely-exempt, and the other aggravating factor was admitted by Petitioner during the plea colloquy.

Summary of this case from Van Norman v. Schriro

Opinion

2:04-cv-02298-JWS.

May 14, 2007


PROCEEDINGS: ORDER FROM CHAMBERS


Ruben Nino has asked the court to issue a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The issues were briefed, and Magistrate Judge Pyle filed a report at docket 26 in which he recommends that petitioner's claim of ineffective assistance from his lawyer be dismissed as unexhausted and procedurally barred, and that his Blakely claim be denied on the merits. No objections have been filed.

When reviewing a recommendation from a magistrate judge in a case such as this, the district court reviews all recommended findings of fact as to which an objection is taken and all recommended conclusions of law de novo. The district court reviews all other recommended findings of fact for clear error. Having applied the standards just recited, this court concludes that the magistrate judge's recommendations are in all respects correct. This court adopts them. Based thereon, the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is dismissed as procedurally barred, and the Blakely claim is denied on its merits.

For the reasons above, the petition is DENIED, and all claims made by Nino are DISMISSED with prejudice.

The status motion filed by Nino at docket 24 is DENIED as moot.

The Clerk will please close this file.


Summaries of

NINO v. FLANNIGAN

United States District Court, D. Arizona
May 14, 2007
2:04-cv-02298-JWS (D. Ariz. May. 14, 2007)

In Nino v. Flannigan, No. 2:04cv2298-JWS (CRP), 2007 WL 1412493 (D.Ariz., May 14, 2007), the court found petitioner's aggravated sentence comported with Blakely because one of the aggravating factors, a prior conviction, was Blakely-exempt, and the other aggravating factor was admitted by Petitioner during the plea colloquy.

Summary of this case from Van Norman v. Schriro

In Nino v. Flannigan, No. 2:04cv2298-JWS (CRP), 2007 WL 1412493 (D.Ariz., May 14, 2007), the court found petitioner's aggravated sentence comported with Blakely because one of the aggravating factors, a prior conviction, was Blakely-exempt, and the other aggravating factor was admitted by Petitioner during the plea colloquy.

Summary of this case from Van Norman v. Schriro
Case details for

NINO v. FLANNIGAN

Case Details

Full title:Ruben Nino v. Charles Flannigan, et al

Court:United States District Court, D. Arizona

Date published: May 14, 2007

Citations

2:04-cv-02298-JWS (D. Ariz. May. 14, 2007)

Citing Cases

Van Norman v. Schriro

The R R notes that courts in this Circuit have consistently held that a prior conviction alone is sufficient…

Van Norman v. Schriro

Id. In Nino v. Flannigan, No. 2:04cv2298-JWS (CRP), 2007 WL 1412493 (D.Ariz., May 14, 2007), the court found…