Opinion
Civ. 12-1016 RB/GBW
03-05-2013
DAKOTA CLAY AHLGRIM, Petitioner, v. JAMES LOPEZ and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Respondents.
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION AND DISMISSING CASE
This matter comes before the Court on Petitioner's Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody, doc. 1. On February 13, 2009, Petitioner pled guilty to one count of Aggravated Burglary (Deadly Weapon). Doc. 7, ex. A. At an amenability hearing, the court determined that Petitioner was not amenable to treatment as a juvenile and therefore sentenced him as an adult to nine years of incarceration followed by two years of parole. Id., ex. C. After filing numerous habeas petitions in the state courts—all of which were denied—Petitioner filed the instant § 2254 petition on September 28, 2012. Doc. 1.
The Magistrate Judge filed his Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition on February 8, 2013. Doc. 8. He construed the petition to set forth seven grounds for relief: (1) denial of Petitioner's right to speak on his own behalf at his sentencing hearing; (2) denial of Petitioner's right to a jury determination of whether he was amenable to sentencing as a juvenile; (3) failure of Judge Sandra Price to recuse herself from presiding over Petitioner's May 2012 habeas petition; (4) lack of physical evidence to support the charge of Aggravated Burglary (Deadly Weapon); (5) failure of the San Juan Juvenile Detention Center to provide mental health services; (6) ineffective assistance of counsel due to the fact that counsel allegedly told Petitioner he could not appeal the plea agreement; and (7) ineffective assistance of counsel due to the conflict of interest created by counsel's friendship with the Deputy District Attorney. Id. at 6.
The Magistrate Judge recommended that claims (1), (3), (4), and (5) be dismissed for failure to state a claim cognizable in a § 2254 petition. Id. at 8-12. He then determined that Petitioner had properly exhausted the remaining claims and proceeded to consider them on the merits. Id. at 13-18. The Magistrate Judge recommended that the remaining claims be dismissed as meritless because, in all three cases, the state court's determinations were reasonable. Id. at 21-31.
Plaintiff has filed no objections to the PFRD, and, upon review of the record, I concur with the Magistrate Judge's findings and recommendations.
Wherefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition, doc. 8, is ADOPTED. Plaintiff's claims are DISMISSED with prejudice.
/s/_________
ROBERT C. BRACK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE