United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
JAMAR A. BOVAN, Petitioner,
ROBERT HERZOG, Respondent.
JOHN C. COUGHENOUR, District Judge.
The Court, having reviewed Petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus, Respondent's response thereto, the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") of United States Magistrate Judge Mary Alice Theiler, Petitioner's objections, and the remaining record, hereby ADOPTS the R&R with AMENDMENT, and DISMISSES the petition. (Dkt. No. 5.)
Petitioner Jamar A. Bovan is incarcerated at the Monroe Correctional Center in Monroe, Washington, pursuant to guilty pleas on three state drug-trafficking charges. (Dkt. No. 19, Exs. 1-3.) Mr. Bovan was sentenced under these pleas on August 10, 2009. ( Id. ) Mr. Bovan challenged these convictions in three Personal Restraint Petitions ("PRPs"), the first of which was filed on August 20, 2010. (Dkt. No. 19, Ex. 9.) These petitions were consolidated and ultimately dismissed by the Washington State Supreme Court on April 25, 2012. (Dkt. No. 19, Exs. 11-15.) Mr. Bovan's habeas petition also challenges three additional convictions. (Dkt. No. 5 at 1.) The first of these convictions became final in 2001, (Dkt. No. 29 at 3) and the second and third convictions became final in 2004. (Dkt. No. 19, Exs. 7 and 8.) Mr. Bovan filed his habeas petition challenging all six convictions on May 27, 2013. (Dkt. No. 5 at 1.) There is no question that Mr. Bovan's challenges to his 2001 and 2004 convictions are time-barred for federal habeas purposes. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A). As such, only the 2008 and 2009 convictions are at issue.
Mr. Bovan alleges four grounds for relief:
A. The prosecution failed to conduct adequate discovery and share it with the defense in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963);
B. The trial court violated Mr. Bovan's procedural due-process rights by transferring Mr. Bovan's motions to withdraw his guilty pleas to the appellate court without giving Mr. Bovan notice or the opportunity to be heard;
C. He was sentenced to multiple punishments for the same offense in violation of the state and federal prohibitions against double jeopardy;
D. The prosecutor lied on probable-cause documents for cause numbers 08-1-0110-1-SEA and 08-12643-5-SEA.
(Dkt. No. 5.)
Magistrate Judge Theiler issued an R&R in which she recommended that Mr. Bovan's petition be dismissed as time-barred. (Dkt. 29.) Judge Theiler concluded that the one-year statute of limitations ran prior to August 20, 2010, when Mr. Bovan's first PRP was received by the state court. ( Id at 2-3.) Mr. Bovan timely objected to the R&R, arguing that his PRPs should be considered filed on August 5-the date he mailed them-and that the one-year statute of limitations had not lapsed because it was tolled during the pendency of his state PRPs. (Dkt. 30 at 7-8.) Mr. Bovan also requests an evidentiary hearing to resolve the dispute about which date his PRPs were filed. Upon review, the Court rejects Mr. Bovan's objections.
A district court reviews de novo those portions of an R&R to which a party objects. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3). A party properly objects under the Federal Rules when he or she files "specific written objections" to the magistrate judge's report. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(2). General objections or summaries of arguments already presented, however, have the same effect as no ...