“[A] state-court factual determination is not unreasonable 22 merely because the federal habeas court would have reached a different conclusion in the first 23 instance.”
How later courts described this case
- “[A] state-court factual determination is not unreasonable 22 merely because the federal habeas court would have reached a different conclusion in the first 23 instance.”
- a reviewing court “may set aside the jury's 18 verdict on the ground of insufficient evidence only if no rational trier of fact could have agreed 19 with the jury”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 KRYSTAL WANDICK, Case No. 1:20-cv-00745-KES-HBK (HC)
12 Petitioner, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO
DENY PETITION AND DECLINE TO ISSUE
13 v. A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 1
14 CENTRAL CALIFORNIA WOMEN’S FOURTEEN-DAY OBJECTION PERIOD
FACILITY,
15
Respondent.
16
17
18 I. STATUS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
19 Petitioner Krystal Wandick (“Petitioner” or “Wandick”), a state prisoner, is proceeding
20 pro se on her Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed under 28 U. S.C. § 2254 on May 28, 2020.
21 (Doc. No. 1, “Petition”). Petitioner challenges her judgement of conviction after a jury trial for:
22 (1) voluntary manslaughter in violation of Penal Code § 192(a) and (2) assault with a firearm in
23 violation of Penal Code § 245(a)(2), for which she was sentenced by the Kern County Superior
24 Court to a determinate term of twenty-one (21) years for the count 1 offense, consisting of the
25 upper term of eleven (11) years and a consecutive upper term of ten (10) years for the section
26
27
1 This matter was referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302
28 (E.D. Cal. 2022).
1 12022.53(d) gun enhancement.2 (Case No. BF167698A). (Doc. No. 15 at 4, 7; Doc. No. 16-10 at
2 7).3 The Fifth Appellate District Court affirmed Wandick’s judgment on direct appeal (Case No.
3 F077006). (Doc. No. 16-13). On January 15, 2020, the California Supreme Court summarily
4 denied Wandick’s petition for review (Case No. S259275). (Doc. No. 16-15).
5 The Petition presents one ground for relief (restated): there was insufficient evidence to
6 convict Petitioner of voluntary manslaughter. (Doc. No. 1 at 7). By way of background, the
7 Petition asserted four grounds for relief. (See generally Doc. No. 1). On June 03, 2020, upon
8 screening, the Court found the Petition presented both exhausted and unexhausted grounds, and
9 ordered Petitioner to show cause why her petition should not be dismissed as a mixed petition.
10 (Doc. No. 4). On July 11, 2020, Petitioner notified the Court that she elected to proceed with a
11 Kelly stay and to dismiss her unexhausted grounds (first, third and fourth grounds). (Doc. No. 6).
12 On June 15, 2020, the court took notice of Petitioner’s dismissal of her three unexhausted claims,
13 deemed the petition amended to dismiss the first, third and fourth claims, and stayed and held in
14 abeyance the Petition so that Petitioner could exhaust those claims. (Doc. No. 8). On June 25,
15 2020, Petitioner notified the court that she wished to proceed only with her exhausted claim.
16 (Doc. No. 9). On July 2, 2020, the Court lifted the stay and ordered the respondent to respond to
17 Petitioner’s Petition as previously deemed amended, i.e. respond to the sole exhausted ground for
18 relief: ground two. (Doc. No. 10).
19 Respondent filed an Answer (Doc. No. 15), arguing the sole ground for relief is without
20 merit, and lodged the state court record in support (Doc. No. 16, 16-1 through 16-15). Petitioner
21 elected not to file a reply. This matter is deemed submitted on the record before the Court. After
22 careful review of the record and applicable law, the undersigned recommends the district court
23 deny Petitioner relief on her Petition and decline to issue a certificate of appealability.
24 ////
25 ////
26
2 Sentence for count 2 was imposed and stayed pursuant to section 654. (Case No. BF167698A).
27 (Doc. No. 15 at 4, 7; Doc. No. 16-10 at 7).
3 All citations to the pleadings and record are to the page number as it appears on the Case Management
28 and Electronic Case Filing (“CM/ECF”) system.
1 II. GOVERNING LEGAL PRINCIPLES
2 A. Evidentiary Hearing
3 In deciding whether to grant an evidentiary hearing, a federal court must consider whether
4 such a hearing could enable an applicant to prove the petition's factual allegations, which, if true,
5 would entitle the applicant to federal habeas relief.” Schriro v. Landrigan, 550 U.S. 465, 474
6 (2007). “It follows that if the record refutes the applicant's factual allegations or otherwise
7 precludes habeas relief, a district court is not required to hold an evidentiary hearing.” Id. Here,
8 the state courts adjudicated Petitioner’s sole claim for relief on the merits. This Court finds that
9 the pertinent facts of this case are fully developed in the record before the Court; thus, no
10 evidentiary hearing is required. Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170 (2011).
11 B. ADEPA General Principles
12 A federal court’s statutory authority to issue habeas corpus relief for persons in state
13 custody is set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2254, as amended by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death
14 Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). AEDPA requires a state prisoner seeking federal habeas relief to
15 first “exhaus[t] the remedies available in the courts of the State.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A). If
16 the state courts do not adjudicate the prisoner’s federal claim “on the merits,” a de novo standard
17 of review applies in the federal habeas proceeding; if the state courts do adjudicate the claim on
18 the merits, then the AEDPA mandates a deferential, rather than de novo, review. Kernan v.
19 Hinojosa, 136 S. Ct. 1603, 1604 (2016). This deferential standard, set forth in § 2254(d), permits
20 relief on a claim adjudicated on the merits, but only if the adjudication:
21 (1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an
unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as
22 determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or
23 (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable
determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the
24 State court proceeding.
25 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). This standard is both mandatory and intentionally difficult to satisfy.
26 Sexton v. Beaudreaux, 138 S. Ct. 2555, 2558 (2018); White v. Woodall, 572 U.S. 415, 419 (2014).
27 “Clearly established federal law” consists of the governing legal principles in the
28 decisions of the United States Supreme Court when the state court issued its decision. White, 572
1 U.S. at 419. Habeas relief is appropriate only if the state court decision was “contrary to, or an
2 unreasonable application of,” that federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). A decision is “contrary
3 to” clearly established federal law if the state court either: (1) applied a rule that contradicts the
4 governing law set forth by Supreme Court case law; or (2) reached a different result from the
5 Supreme Court when faced with materially indistinguishable facts. Mitchell v. Esparza, 540 U.S.
6 12, 16 (2003).
7 A state court decision involves an “unreasonable application” of the Supreme Court’s
8 precedents if the state court correctly identifies the governing legal principle, but applies it to the
9 facts of the petitioner’s case in an objectively unreasonable manner, Brown v. Payton, 544 U.S.
10 133, 134 (2005), or “if the state court either unreasonably extends a legal principle from
11 [Supreme Court] precedent to a new context where it should not apply or unreasonably refuses to
12 extend that principle to a new context where it should apply.” Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362,
13 407, (2000). “A state court’s determination that a claim lacks merit precludes federal habeas
14 relief so long as fair-minded jurists could disagree on the correctness of the state court’s
15 decision.” Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 101 (2011). The petitioner must show that the
16 state court decision “was so lacking in justification that there was an error well understood and
17 comprehended in existing law beyond any possibility for fairminded disagreement.” Id. at 103.
18 When reviewing a claim under § 2254(d), any “determination of a factual issue made by a
19 State court shall be presumed to be correct[,]” and the petitioner bears “the burden of rebutting
20 the presumption of correctness by clear and convincing evidence.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1); Burt
21 v. Titlow, 571 U.S. 12, 18 (2013) (“[A] state-court factual determination is not unreasonable
22 merely because the federal habeas court would have reached a different conclusion in the first
23 instance.”) (quoting Wood v. Allen, 558 U.S. 290, 293 (2010)).
24 Even if a petitioner meets AEDPA's “difficult” standard, he must still show that any
25 constitutional error had a “substantial and injurious effect or influence” on the verdict. Brecht v.
26 Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 637 (1993). As the Supreme Court recently explained, while the
27 passage of AEDPA “announced certain new conditions to [habeas] relief,” it didn't
28 eliminate Brecht’s actual-prejudice requirement. Brown v. Davenport, ––– U.S. ––––, 142 S. Ct.
1 1510, 1524, 212 L.Ed.2d 463 (2022). In other words, a habeas petitioner must satisfy Brecht,
2 even if AEDPA applies. See id. at 1526 (“[O]ur equitable precedents remain applicable ‘whether
3 or not’ AEDPA applies.”) (citing Fry v. Pliler, 551 U.S. 112, 121, 127 S.Ct. 2321, 168 L.Ed.2d
4 16 (2007)). In short, a “federal court must deny relief to a state habeas petitioner who fails to
5 satisfy either [Brecht] or AEDPA. But to grant relief, a court must find that the petition has
6 cleared both tests.” Id. at 1524.
7 As discussed supra, for the deferential § 2254(d) standard to apply there must have been
8 an “adjudication on the merits” in state court. An adjudication on the merits does not require that
9 there be an opinion from the state court explaining the state court’s reasoning. Richter, 562 U.S.
10 at 98. “When a federal claim has been presented to a state court and the state court has denied
11 relief, it may be presumed that the state court adjudicated the claim on the merits in the absence
12 of any indication or state-law procedural principles to the contrary.” Id. at 99. “The presumption
13 may be overcome when there is reason to think some other explanation for the state court’s
14 decision is more likely.” Id. at 99-100. This presumption applies whether the state court fails to
15 discuss all the claims or discusses some claims but not others. Johnson v. Williams, 568 U.S.
16 289, 293, 298-301 (2013).
17 While such a decision is an “adjudication on the merits,” the federal habeas court must
18 still determine the state court’s reasons for its decision in order to apply the deferential standard.
19 When the relevant state-court decision on the merits is not accompanied by its reasons,
20 the federal court should “look through” the unexplained decision to
the last related state-court decision that does provide a relevant
21 rationale. It should then presume that the unexplained decision
adopted the same reasoning. But the State may rebut the
22 presumption by showing that the unexplained affirmance relied or
most likely did rely on different grounds than the lower state court’s
23 decision, such as alternative grounds for affirmance that were
briefed or argued to the state supreme court or obvious in the record
24 it reviewed.
25 Wilson v. Sellers, 138 S. Ct. 1188, 1192 (2018). The federal court “looks through” the silent state
26 court decision “for a specific and narrow purpose—to identify the grounds for the higher court’s
27 decision, as AEDPA directs us to do.” Id. at 1196.
28 ////
1 III. RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND
2 The Court adopts the pertinent facts of the underlying offenses, as summarized by the
3 California Fifth District Court of Appeal. A presumption of correctness applies to these facts.
4 See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1); Crittenden v. Chappell, 804 F.3d 998, 1010-11 (9th Cir. 2015).
5 Factual and Procedural Background
6 The afternoon of March 16, 2017, Shkira Rowel[FN2] went to a
party on Reese Avenue in Bakersfield at the home of Wandick’s
7 grandmother. Wandick, her boyfriend, Darrell Washington, and the
victim Albert King were at the party. Wandick, Shkira, and King
8 had known each other for most of their lives. Antwan arrived at the
party later. The group started drinking alcohol.
9
Later that evening, the group went to another party at a location on
10 Gordon Street. King was given a ride to the Gordon Street address
by Wandick’s cousin, who dropped King off and left. Everyone
11 went to the backyard area where the party was primarily located.
About 15 to 20 other people were at the party. Everyone continued
12 to drink alcohol.
13 About an hour after they arrived at the party on Gordon Street,
Shkira heard Wandick complaining loudly. Shkira and Antwan
14 heard King yell at Wandick to be quiet. Wandick and King argued
back and forth and then Shkira saw Wandick push King in the face
15 with her hand. Both Shkira and Antwan then saw King grab
Wandick by the throat. Others at the party immediately separated
16 Wandick and King. Wandick did not lose consciousness when
King grabbed her throat.
17
[FN2] Shkira Rowel and her brother, Antwan, share the
18 same last name. They will be referred to by their first names
for clarity.
19
The party ended around 30 minutes after the argument. Everyone
20 from the party started to leave. Antwan and Shkira walked toward
Shkira’s car parked at the front of the house. Shkira agreed to give
21 Wandick and Washington a ride back to the house on Reese
Avenue. Antwan was in the driver’s seat; Shkira was in the front
22 passenger seat; Washington was behind Antwan; and Wandick was
behind Shkira.
23
As Antwan began driving away, Wandick asked him to stop and go
24 back to the house on Gordon Street. Antwan made a U-turn and
drove back, stopping in the street in front of the house. Shkira
25 believed the headlights of the car remained on; Antwan could not
recall.
26
After the car pulled to a stop, Shkira began changing the disk in the
27 CD player. As she was doing so, she heard Wandick’s car door
open. Antwan saw Wandick get out of the car and walk toward the
28 area where Kind was standing. Wandick had her back toward the
1 car and King was facing the car. Antwan told detectives that he
saw Wandick and King arguing, saw King drop to the ground, and
2 then heard shots coming from behind and drove off.
3 When Shkira heard the first gunshot, she crouched down. She saw
Washington was still in the backseat. Shkira heard at least five
4 gunshots and bullets struck the car. She told Antwan to drive away.
As they drove away, Antwan and Shkira realized Washington was
5 noy in the car, but Wandick was in the back seat.
6 Shkira asked Wandick what had happened and Wandick replied, “I
shot him.” Shkira grabbed Wandick and Wandick stated, “just kill
7 me.” Antwan could not hear the conversation clearly because of
music playing in the car but thought Wandick said something like
8 “did I shoot him.” Antwan drove to Shkira’s apartment and the two
went inside; Wandick went elsewhere.
9
Wandick’s cousin returned to the party shortly before the shooting,
10 around 2:45 a.m. As she walked from her car towards the house,
she heard gunshots and dropped to the ground. She stayed on the
11 ground until the gunshots ended and started back to her car. She
saw King walk up to her car; he had blood coming out of his
12 mouth. She drove King to a nearby fire station, where he died.
13 An autopsy revealed that King died as a result of a gunshot wound
to his chest. The bullet entered King’s right front chest and lodged
14 in the middle of his back, near the spine. The bullet was a small
caliber.
15
Sheriff’s deputies recovered shell casings from in front of the
16 Gordon Street house. There were seven .45-caliber casings and one
.25-caliber casing. An inspection of Shkira’s car disclosed that all
17 the bullets fired at the car appeared to be concentrated in the right
rear passenger area. Law enforcement knew that the area of the
18 shooting was known as Crips street gang territory. It also was
known that Washington was affiliated with the Bloods street gang,
19 rivals of the Crips.
20 Five days after the shooting, Wandick was apprehended in Oildale.
Oildale is outside the Crips territory. Wandick was hiding out in
21 Oildale because she believed she was going to be killed because
people believed she killed King. When interviewed, she at first
22 denied seeing King in front of the Gordon street house. Later, she
admitted hearing King say about her and Washington, “this bitch be
23 havin[g] a blood nigga in the hood.” Wandick admitted knowing
that Washington was a member of the Bloods gang.
24
Wandick claimed a man in a black hoodie, whose face she could
25 not see, did the shooting. She also claimed at first that she got a
ride from a woman to a store near the Gordon Street house where
26 she called her cousin for a ride home. Later, Wandick admitted
fleeing Gordon Street in Shkira’s car. Wandick denied saying, “I
27 shot him” to Shkira.
28
1 An information was filed charging Wandick in count 1 with
murder, in violation of section 187, subdivision (a) and in count 2
2 with a firearm, in violation of section 245, subdivision (a)(2). It
was alleged the murder was willful, deliberate, and premeditated.
3 A section 12022.53, subdivision (d) enhancement was alleged as to
count 1 and a section 12022.5, subdivision (a) enhancement was
4 alleged as to count 2.
5 A jury found Wandick guilty of the lesser included offense of
voluntary manslaughter on count 1 and found the enhancement true.
6 The jury also found Wandick guilty on count 2 and the
enhancement appended thereto to be true.
7
The trial court imposed a term of 11 years for the count 1 offense
8 and 10 years for the enhancement. The term imposed for count 2
was stayed pursuant to section 654. Wandick filed a timely notice
9 of appeal.
10 (Doc. No. 16-13 at 3-6).
11 IV. ANALYSIS
12 Respondent acknowledges that Petitioner’s single ground for relief was raised on direct
13 appeal to the Fifth Appellate District Court, denied on the merits (Doc. No. 16-13 at 1-9),
14 subsequently raised, and summarily denied by the California Supreme Court (Doc. No. 16-15 at
15 2). Thus, the sole ground is exhausted, and the Court looks to the Fifth Appellate District’s
16 reasoned decision in evaluating Petitioner’s claim under the deferential standard.
17 Petitioner contends that she could not have shot the victim because she was never
18 identified as the shooter at trial. (Doc. No. 1 at 7). She claims she never had a gun in her
19 possession and that no testimony was given to indicate she possessed any weapon on the night of
20 the incident. (Id. at 5). Petitioner also challenges the testimony given by Shkira and Antwan
21 about the statements she made in the car after King was shot. (Id. at 7). According to Petitioner,
22 both witnesses were highly intoxicated at the time of the incident, neither could “remember
23 everything,” and Shkira’s “story changed” about Darell Washington being in the car at the time of
24 the shooting. (Id.). Thus, Petitioner claims the jury’s reliance on Shkira’s and Washington’s
25 testimony in identifying her as the shooter was unreasonable. (Id.). Respondent argues that the
26 state appeal court’s denial of Petitioner’s claim, which was undisturbed by the California
27 Supreme Court, was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, federal law. (Doc. No. 15
28 at 9-10 (citing Doc. No. 16-13 at 6-9)). Respondent contends that Petitioner is attempting to
1 reweigh the trial evidence in her favor, and that the state court reasonably rejected this argument.
2 (Doc. No. 15 at 10).
3 1. State Court Decision
4 The Court of Appeal considered and rejected Petitioner’s insufficiency of the evidence
5 claim finding it was without merit.
6 Wandick challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support her
convictions. She maintains the evidence is insufficient to establish
7 beyond a reasonable doubt that she was the one who shot King.
8 Standard of Review
9 In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, “ ‘we review the
whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment to
10 determine whether it discloses substantial evidence--that is,
evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value--from
11 which a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty
beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ” (People v. Cravens (2012) 53
12 Cal.4th 500, 507 (Cravens).) “We must presume in support of the
judgment the existence of every fact that the trier of fact could
13 reasonably deduce from the evidence.” (People v. Medina (2009)
46 Cal.4th 913, 919.) “The conviction shall stand ‘unless it appears
14 “that upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient substantial
evidence to support [the conviction].” ’ ” (Cravens, supra, 53
15 Cal.4th at p. 508.) The standard of review is the same in cases in
which a conviction is based primarily on circumstantial evidence.
16 (People v. Clark (2016) 63 Cal.4th 522, 625.)
17 As stated by the Supreme Court, in assessing sufficiency of the
evidence to support a conviction, this court:
18
“review[s] the whole record to determine whether any
19 rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements
of the crime ... beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citation.] The
20 record must disclose substantial evidence to support the
verdict-i.e., evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of
21 solid value-such that a reasonable trier of fact could find the
defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citation.] In
22 applying this test, we review the evidence in the light most
favorable to the prosecution and presume in support of the
23 judgment the existence of every fact the jury could
reasonably have deduced from the evidence. [Citation.] ...
24 ‘We resolve neither credibility issues nor evidentiary
conflicts; we look for substantial evidence. [Citation.]’
25 [Citation.] A reversal for insufficient evidence ‘is
unwarranted unless it appears “that upon no hypothesis
26 whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support”
’ the jury's verdict.” (People v. Zamudio (2008) 43 Cal.4th
27 327, 357, first italics in original, later italics added; see
People v. Rangel (2016) 62 Cal.4th 1192, 1212-1213;
28 People v. Edwards (2013) 57 Cal.4th 658, 715.)
1 “ ‘ “If the circumstances reasonably justify the [jury's] findings, the
opinion of the reviewing court that the circumstances might also
2 reasonably be reconciled with a contrary finding does not warrant
reversal of the judgment.” ’ ” (Cravens, supra, 53 Cal.4th at p.
3 508.)
4 Analysis
5 Here, there is ample evidence from which a reasonable jury could
have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Wandick was the person
6 who shot King. “The test is whether substantial evidence supports
the decision, not whether the evidence proves guilt beyond a
7 reasonable doubt.” (People v. Mincey (1992) 2 Cal.4th 408, 432.)
8 Wandick had a motive to kill King. They had argued at the party
and were arguing in the street just before he was shot. Wandick
9 also admitted overhearing a derogatory remark made by King about
her and Washington. Evidence of motive is ordinarily the incentive
10 for criminal behavior and motive renders inferences more
reasonable. (People v. McKinnon (2011) 52 Cal.4th 610, 655.)
11
Furthermore, Wandick was standing directly in front of and facing
12 King when he was shot in the right front chest. Antwan heard
Wandick and King arguing, then saw King fall to the ground. King
13 was shot with a small caliber bullet; one small caliber casing was
found on Gordon Street. After the shooting, Shkira testified that
14 Wandick stated, “I shot him.”
15 “Unless it describes facts or events that are physically impossible or
inherently improbable, the testimony of a single witness is
16 sufficient to support a conviction.” (People v. Elliott (2012) 53
Cal.4th 535, 585; see Evid. Code, § 411.) Any doubts about
17 identification are for the trier of fact to resolve. (Elliott, supra, at p.
585.) “[W]hen the circumstances surrounding the identification and
18 its weight are explored at length at trial, [ and] where eyewitness
identification is believed by the trier of fact, that determination is
19 binding on the reviewing court.” (In re Gustavo M (1989) 214
Cal.App.3d 1485, 1497.) The testimony of Antwan and Shkira
20 provides ample circumstantial evidence establishing that Wandick
shot King. (People v. Clark, supra, 63 Cal.4th at p. 625.)
21
Wandick also gave false information to law enforcement when first
22 questioned. She initially claimed not to have seen King in front of
the Gordon Street house. Wandick also falsely claimed initially
23 that she did not leave the scene of the shooting with Antwan and
Shkira. False statements regarding potentially incriminating
24 circumstances constitute evidence which may support an inference
of guilt. (People v. Showers (1968) 68 Cal.2d 639, 643; People v.
25 Beyah (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 1241, 1249.)
26 Granted, Wandick denied ever stating, “I killed him” to Shkira.
Wandick also claimed that an unknown man in a black hoodie shot
27 King. However, resolution of conflicting evidence and credibility
issues are for the trier of fact to decide. (People v. Martinez (2008)
28 158 Cal.App.4th 1324, 1331.)
1 Thus, as shown above, based on the evidence viewed in the light
most favorable to the judgment, Wandick's actions and statements,
2 and the reasonable inferences therefrom, constitute substantial
evidence supporting the verdict. (See In re V. V. (2011) 51 Cal.4th
3 1020, 1026 [if the evidence “reasonably justif[ies] the trier of fact’s
findings, the opinion of the reviewing court that the circumstances
4 might also reasonably be reconciled with a contrary finding does
not warrant reversal of the judgment”].)
5
6 (Doc. No. 16-13 at 5-8); People v. Wandick, No. F077006.
7 2. Federal Habeas Analysis
8 The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects a criminal defendant from
9 conviction “except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the
10 crime with which he is charged.” In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 364 (1970). The federal standard
11 for determining the sufficiency of the evidence to support a jury finding is set forth in Jackson v.
12 Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979). Under Jackson, “the relevant question is whether, after viewing
13 the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have
14 found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. at 319 (emphasis in
15 original); see also Coleman v. Johnson, 566 U.S. 650, 656 (2012) (“the only question under
16 Jackson is whether that finding was so insupportable as to fall below the threshold of bare
17 rationality”); Cavazos v. Smith, 565 U.S. 1, 2 (2011) (a reviewing court “may set aside the jury's
18 verdict on the ground of insufficient evidence only if no rational trier of fact could have agreed
19 with the jury”).
20 The Jackson standard “must be applied with explicit reference to the substantive elements
21 of the criminal offense as defined by state law.” Jackson, 443 U.S. at 324 n.16; Juan H. v. Allen,
22 408 F.3d 1262, 1275-76 (9th Cir. 2005). The reviewing court should look to state law for the
23 elements of the offense and then turn to the federal question of whether any rational trier of fact
24 could have found the essential elements of the crime supported by sufficient evidence beyond a
25 reasonable doubt. See Johnson v. Montgomery, 899 F.3d 1052, 1056 (9th Cir. 2018).
26 Further, when both Jackson and AEDPA apply to the same claim, the claim is reviewed
27 under a “twice-deferential standard.” Parker v. Matthews, 567 U.S. 37, 43 (2012). As noted by
28 the Supreme Court:
1 First, on direct appeal, “it is the responsibility of the jury−not the
court−to decide what conclusions should be drawn from evidence
2 admitted at trial. A reviewing court may set aside the jury's verdict
on the ground of insufficient evidence only if no rational trier of
3 fact could have agreed with the jury.” And second, on habeas
review, “a federal court may not overturn a state court decision
4 rejecting a sufficiency of the evidence challenge simply because the
federal court disagrees with the state court. The federal court
5 instead may do so only if the state court decision was ‘objectively
unreasonable.’ ”
6
7 Coleman, 566 U.S. at 651.
8 Here, the Court of Appeal , although not citing to Jackson, applied the same test and
9 determined there was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding of voluntary manslaughter
10 within the meaning of California law. California law defines voluntary manslaughter as the
11 unlawful killing of a human being without malice. See People v. Bryant, 56 Cal. 4th 959, 967
12 (2013). A defendant lacks malice and is guilty of voluntary manslaughter in limited, explicitly
13 defined circumstances: either when the defendant acts in a sudden quarrel or heat of passion, or
14 when the defendant kills in unreasonable self-defense. See People v. Blakeley, 23 Cal. 4th 82, 87
15 (2000). A jury may find an unlawful killing is voluntary manslaughter if it reasonably concludes
16 that there was sufficient provocation to inflame strong passions and obscure the killer’s reason
17 and judgement. People v. Lee, 20 Cal. 4th 47, 60 (1999); see People v. Breverman, 19 Cal. 4th
18 142, 163 (1998), overruled in part by People v. Schuller, 15 Cal. 5th 237, 260 n. 7 (2023),
19 (provocation must be sufficient to cause an “ordinary [person] of average disposition … to act
20 rashly or without due deliberation and reflection, and from this passion rather than from
21 judgement.”).
22 Petitioner does not explain how the state court decision was objectively unreasonable
23 under controlling federal law. The jury heard testimony that Wandick overheard King make a
24 derogatory remark about her and Washington; testimony that Wandick and King had argued
25 earlier that night and were arguing in the street before King was shot; evidence that Wandick was
26 standing directly in front of and facing King when he was shot in the right front chest with a small
27 caliber bullet; evidence that a small caliber casing was found near where Petitioner stood in front
28 of King when he was shot; and further testimony that Shkira heard Petitioner state “I shot him”
1 after the shooting. (Doc. No. 16-5 at 130-134, 155-156, 190-194; Doc. No. 16-6 at 94-101, 124-
2 125, 250). While Petitioner denied ever saying, “I killed him” to Shkira and claimed instead that
3 an unknown man in a black hoodie shot the victim, any doubts about identification are for the
4 jury to resolve. See People v. Elliott, 53 Cal.4th 535, 585 (2012). The jury had before it, and
5 presumably considered, the evidence regarding Antwan and Shkira’s level of intoxication, ability
6 to recall the incident, and reliability as witnesses. (Doc. No. 16-5 at 147-148, 151; Doc. No. 16-6
7 at 32, 84; 16-7 at 54). A rational trier of fact could have reasonably relied on the evidence
8 presented to identify Wandick as King’s shooter, and it is not the Court’s role to reweigh the
9 evidence. Cavazos, 565 U.S. at 7 n.* (reweighing of the facts is precluded by Jackson); Nevils,
10 598 F.3d at 1170 (in assessing sufficiency of the evidence claim, it is not the court’s function to
11 reweigh the evidence). Indeed, the Court is required to resolve all conflicting evidence in favor
12 of the judgment. (Id.). The Court of Appeal was objectively reasonable in determining that,
13 “based on the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the judgment, Wandick's actions and
14 statements, and the reasonable inferences therefrom, constitute substantial evidence supporting
15 the verdict.” (Doc 16-3 at 8-9).
16 In summary, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational
17 trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Petitioner shot King in the heat of
18 passion within the meaning of voluntary manslaughter as defined by California law. As such, the
19 Court of Appeal's rejection of this claim was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of,
20 clearly established Supreme Court precedent, nor an unreasonable determination of the facts. The
21 undersigned recommends the sole ground for relief in the Petition be denied.
22 V. CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABIILTY
23 A petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute right to appeal a district
24 court’s denial of a petition; he may appeal only in limited circumstances. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253;
25 Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003). Rule 11 Governing § 2254 Cases requires a
26 district court to issue or deny a certificate of appealability when entering a final order adverse to a
27 petitioner. See also Ninth Circuit Rule 22-1(a); United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268, 1270 (9th
28 Cir. 1997). A certificate of appealability will not issue unless a petitioner makes “a substantial
1 | showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). This standard requires
2 | the petitioner to show that “jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s resolution of
3 | his constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to
4 | deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 327; accord Slack v.
5 | McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Because the petitioner has not made a substantial showing
6 | of the denial of a constitutional right, the undersigned recommends that the court decline to issue
7 | acertificate of appealability.
8 Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED:
9 1. Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. No. 1) be denied; and
10 2. Petitioner be denied a certificate of appealability.
11 NOTICE TO PARTIES
12 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District
13 | Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within 14 days
14 | after being served with a copy of these Findings and Recommendations, a party may file written
15 | objections with the Court. /d.; Local Rule 304(b). The document should be captioned,
16 | “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations” and shall not exceed fifteen
17 | (15) pages. The Court will not consider exhibits attached to the Objections. To the extent a party
18 | wishes to refer to any exhibit(s), the party should reference the exhibit in the record by its
19 | CM/ECF document and page number, when possible, or otherwise reference the exhibit with
20 || specificity. Any pages filed in excess of the fifteen (15) page limitation may be disregarded by
21 | the District Judge when reviewing these Findings and Recommendations under 28 U.S.C. §
22 | 636(b)()(C). A party’s failure to file any objections within the specified time may result in the
23 | waiver of certain rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014).
24 Dated: _ October 23, 2024 oe Zh. Sareh Back
5 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
27
28
14