From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Jeon v. Frink

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jul 27, 2018
NO. CV 17-6383-JFW (AGR) (C.D. Cal. Jul. 27, 2018)

Opinion

NO. CV 17-6383-JFW (AGR)

07-27-2018

IK SOTO JEON, Petitioner, v. MARTIN FRINK, Warden, Respondent.


ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition, the other records on file herein, the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge and the Objections. Further, the Court has engaged in a de novo review of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections have been made. The Court accepts the findings and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.

In his Objections, Petitioner articulates additional grounds for relief in support of his motion for a stay of proceedings. Petitioner argues that his admission of the prior conviction was not knowing, intelligent and voluntary under In re Yurko, 10 Cal. 3d 857 (1974), and Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (1969). Petitioner does not identify where he asserts this ground in his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus ("Petition") in this court. In any event, Petitioner has already raised this ground before the California Supreme Court in his petition for writ of habeas corpus in that court. (Dkt. No. 12-9 at 37-41.) Accordingly, a stay is wholly unnecessary.

Petitioner also argues that his counsel was ineffective for advising him to admit the prior conviction that increased his sentence. Petitioner asserts ineffective assistance of counsel on this basis in Ground Five in the Petition in this case and asserts that Ground Five is exhausted before the California Supreme Court. (Petition at 6, Dkt. No. 1 at 30-31.).) This court has not made a finding that Ground Five is unexhausted.

IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that Petitioner's motion for a stay is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The case is referred back to Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. Nothing in this order precludes Petitioner from exhausting any claims in state court. DATED: July 27, 2018

/s/_________

JOHN F. WALTER

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Jeon v. Frink

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jul 27, 2018
NO. CV 17-6383-JFW (AGR) (C.D. Cal. Jul. 27, 2018)
Case details for

Jeon v. Frink

Case Details

Full title:IK SOTO JEON, Petitioner, v. MARTIN FRINK, Warden, Respondent.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Jul 27, 2018

Citations

NO. CV 17-6383-JFW (AGR) (C.D. Cal. Jul. 27, 2018)