Opinion
No. 2:13-cv-2124 KJN P
04-02-2014
SCOTT MICHAEL CHERMS, Petitioner, v. P.D. BRAZELTON, Warden, Respondent.
ORDER
Petitioner is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se. Petitioner consented to proceed before the undersigned for all purposes. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). On March 11, 2014, petitioner filed a motion to expand the record. Petitioner appended documents from the state trial court reflecting that on February 19, 2014, the Sacramento County Superior Court sua sponte modified petitioner's sentence based on a sentencing error. (ECF No. 16 at 4-9.) Petitioner asks this court to expand the record to include "any and all materials deemed relevant by the court for a just determination of the merits of the petition." (ECF No. 16 at 2.)
In this action, petitioner raised two claims: (1) the trial court improperly denied petitioner's request for a pretrial fitness report and hearing in the juvenile court; and (2) jury instruction error. (ECF No. 17 at 1.) Thus, the sentencing documents provided by plaintiff are not relevant to the claims raised in the instant petition. Moreover, generally, a challenge to a state court's application of state sentencing laws does not give rise to a federal question cognizable on federal habeas review. See Lewis v. Jeffers, 497 U.S. 764, 780 (1990); Cacoperdo v. Demosthenes, 37 F.3d 504, 507 (9th Cir. 1994) (rejecting a federal due process challenge to the imposition of consecutive sentences because "[t]he decision whether to impose sentences concurrently or consecutively is a matter of state criminal procedure and is not within the purview of federal habeas corpus"); Hendricks v. Zenon, 993 F.2d 664, 674 (9th Cir. 1993) (rejecting as noncognizable a petitioner's federal due process challenge to the trial court's failure to merge, for purposes of sentencing, his kidnapping for robbery conviction with his attempted murder or rape convictions); Sturm v. California Adult Authority, 395 F.2d 446, 448 (9th Cir. 1967) (observing that "a state court's interpretation of its [sentencing] statute does not raise a federal question"), cert. denied, 395 U.S. 947 (1969). Because the documents provided by petitioner are not relevant to the claims raised in the instant petition, petitioner's motion is denied. If petitioner believes that the state court incorrectly modified his sentence, petitioner should seek relief in the Sacramento County Superior Court.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner's motion (ECF No. 16) is denied.
___________________
KENDALL J. NEWMAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE