Juan Francisco Molina v. W.L. Montgomery

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: October 21, 2024
• Docket: 5:21-cv-00570
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JUAN FRANCISCO MOLINA, Case No. 5:21-cv-00570-SB (MAA)

12 Petitioner, ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT 13 v. AND RECOMMENDATION OF 14 JAMES HILL, Warden, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 Respondent. 16 17 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition, the other 18 records on file herein, and the Report and Recommendation of the United States 19 Magistrate Judge. 20 The Court also has reviewed Petitioner’s Statement of Objection to the 21 Report and Recommendation, constructively filed on September 29, 2024, received 22 by the Court on October 3, 2024, and docketed and served on Respondent on 23 October 9, 2024 (Objections). (ECF No. 42.) As required by Federal Rule of Civil 24 Procedure 72(b)(3), the Court has engaged in de novo review of the portions of the 25 Report and Recommendation to which Petitioner specifically has objected. 26 The Objections lack merit for the reasons stated in the Report and 27 Recommendation. In his Objections, Petitioner urges this Court to “dismiss the gun 28 enhancements that [are] attached to the attempted murder [conviction].” Dkt. No. 1 || 42 (cleaned up). He claims that “the [Magistrate] Judge has not grasped [his] 2 || contention correctly” because “the firing of the weapon from [his] moving vehicle 3 || is the only crime committed’—which, he argues, is not subject to enhanced 4 || punishment for personally using and discharging a firearm. Dkt. No. 42. This claim 5 || lacks merit. The magistrate judge properly identified and analyzed the 6 || constitutional issues raised by Petitioner and correctly concluded that the petition 7 || should be denied. Like many states, California has firearm enhancements that 8 || increase the length of a sentence for the use of a firearm while committing a crime. 9 || See, e.g., Cal. Pen. Code § 12022.53. The Ninth Circuit has concluded that such 10 || weapon enhancements, which reflect a legislative intent to provide additional 11 |) punishment for firearm use during the commission of a crime, do not raise any 12 || double-jeopardy concerns. Plascencia v. Alameida, 467 F.3d 1190, 1204 (9th Cir. 13 || 2006) (rejecting double-jeopardy challenge to § 12022.53). The firearm 14 || enhancement for his attempted murder conviction does not therefore violate the 15 || Double Jeopardy Clause, as explained in the Report and Recommendation. 16 The Court finds no defect of law, fact, or logic in the Report and 17 || Recommendation. The Court concurs with and accepts the findings, conclusions, 18 || and recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge, and overrules the 19 || Objections. IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that (1) the Report and 20 || Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is accepted; and (2) Judgment shall be 21 || entered denying the Petition and dismissing this action with prejudice. 22 Dated: October 21, 2024 0S Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr 25 United States District Judge 26 27 | ' The other constitutional challenges are similarly meritless for the reasons stated in 28 || the Report and Recommendation.