Haynes v. Valadez

Ninth Circuit

Haynes v. Valadez

372 F. App'x 734

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMarch 26, 2010

Docket06-16642

StatusUnpublished

This text of 372 F. App'x 734 (Haynes v. Valadez) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Haynes v. Valadez, 372 F. App'x 734 (9th Cir. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Ronald O. Haynes appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

Haynes contends that the Board of Prison Terms (“Board”) violated his rights to equal protection and due process when it *735 failed to give him a parole release date. The state court’s decision denying Haynes’ claims was neither contrary to, nor involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Supreme Court law. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); see also Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68, 112 S.Ct. 475, 116 L.Ed.2d 385 (1991).

Haynes next contends that the Board’s failure to set a fixed sentence term constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Haynes is not entitled to habeas relief on this claim because Haynes failed to demonstrate that his sentence of seven-years-to-life is grossly disproportionate to his two first-degree murder and two kidnapping offenses. See Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 72, 123 S.Ct. 1166, 155 L.Ed.2d 144 (2003).

Haynes last contends that a parole regulation was retroactively applied in violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause. Haynes is not entitled to habeas relief on this claim. See Smith v. United States Parole Comm’n, 875 F.2d 1361, 1367 (9th Cir.1989) (rejecting petitioner’s claim because parole guidelines are not “laws” for purposes of the Ex Post Facto Clause).

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Ronald O. Haynes appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

Haynes contends that the Board of Prison Terms (“Board”) violated his rights to equal protection and due process when it *735 failed to give him a parole release date. The state court’s decision denying Haynes’ claims was neither contrary to, nor involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Supreme Court law. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); see also Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68, 112 S.Ct. 475, 116 L.Ed.2d 385 (1991).

Haynes next contends that the Board’s failure to set a fixed sentence term constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Haynes is not entitled to habeas relief on this claim because Haynes failed to demonstrate that his sentence of seven-years-to-life is grossly disproportionate to his two first-degree murder and two kidnapping offenses. See Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 72, 123 S.Ct. 1166, 155 L.Ed.2d 144 (2003).

Haynes last contends that a parole regulation was retroactively applied in violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause. Haynes is not entitled to habeas relief on this claim. See Smith v. United States Parole Comm’n, 875 F.2d 1361, 1367 (9th Cir.1989) (rejecting petitioner’s claim because parole guidelines are not “laws” for purposes of the Ex Post Facto Clause).

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

372 F. App'x 734, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/haynes-v-valadez-ca9-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack