Norris L. Reese v. Ron Broomfield

Opinion

Case 2:21-cv-04342-SVW-JC Document 11 Filed 02/01/22 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:384

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA NORRIS L. REESE, ) Case No. 2:21-cv-04342-SVW-JC ) ) Petitioner, ) ) ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, v. ) CONCLUSIONS, AND ) RECOMMENDATIONS OF ) UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE ) ) Respondent. ) ________________________________ Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody (“Petition”) and all of the records herein, including the November 3, 2021 Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge (“Report and Recommendation”), and petitioner’s objections thereto filed on November 19, 2021 (“Objections”). The Court has made a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objection is made. The Court concurs with and accepts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge reflected in the Report and Recommendation, and overrules the Objections. The Court has considered and overruled all of petitioner’s objections and discusses petitioner’s principle objections herein. ase 2:21-cv-04342-SVW-JC Document11 Filed 02/01/22 Page 2of2 Page ID #:38

Petitioner objects to the Report and Recommendation, alleging that the Magistrate Judge erred in finding that his 98-years-to-life sentence is not the functional equivalent of life without the possibility of parole as would violate Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012), citing People v. Buffer, 137 N.E. 3d 763, 774 Cl. 2019) (holding that juvenile offender’s sentence of greater than 40 years was de facto life sentence in violation of Miller). See Objections at 5-9. Buffer is not binding on this Court. As the Report and Recommendation explains, the Ninth Circuit squarely rejected a similar claim that lengthy indeterminate term was the functional equivalent of life in Demirdjian v. Gipson, 832 F.3d 1060 (9th Cir. 2016), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 71 (2017). See Report and Recommendation at 9-11 (discussing same). Demirdjian controls in this case. For the reasons explained in the Report and Recommendation, petitioner has not shown that his sentence violates the Eighth Amendment. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petition is denied, this action is dismissed, and Judgment be entered accordingly. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk serve copies of this Order and the Judgment herein on petitioner and any counsel for respondent. DATED: February 1, 2022 73