holding “that the federal court should ‘look through’ the unexplained 9 decision to the last related state-court decision that does provide a relevant 10 rationale” and “should then presume that the unexplained decision adopted the 11 same reasoning”
How later courts described this case
- holding “that the federal court should ‘look through’ the unexplained 9 decision to the last related state-court decision that does provide a relevant 10 rationale” and “should then presume that the unexplained decision adopted the 11 same reasoning”
- “[T]he Supreme Court has not decided any case either ‘squarely 6 address[ing]’ the discretionary exclusion of evidence and the right to present a 7 complete defense or ‘establish[ing] a controlling legal standard’ for evaluating 8 such exclusions.”
- “[C]onclusory suggestions that [ ] trial . . . 24 counsel provided ineffective assistance fall far short of stating a valid claim of 25 constitutional violation
- “An 9 objective factor outside of a petitioner’s control (e.g., ineffective assistance of 10 counsel or a basis for the claim that was previously unavailable) could constitute 11 cause.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Case 2:20-cv-05665-SHK Document 37 Filed 04/08/22 Page 1 of 40 Page ID #:1613
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
KEVIN DUNSTON, Case No. 2:20-cv-05665-SHK
12
Petitioner,
13 ORDER DENYING SECOND
v. AMENDED PETITION AND
14 DISMISSING CASE WITH
WARDEN,
PREJUDICE
15
Respondent.
16
17 Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s Second Amended Petition for Writ
18 of Habeas Corpus (“Second Amended Petition” or “SAP”), filed pursuant to 28
19 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his 2018 California state court conviction of two counts
20 of second-degree robbery. Both Petitioner and Respondent have consented to
21 proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge. Electronic Case Filing Number
22 (“ECF No.”) 22, 25. Because Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the
23 California state courts unreasonably denied the claims raised in the SAP and
24 because Ground 3(c) is procedurally defaulted, the undersigned Magistrate Judge
25 DENIES Petitioner’s request for habeas relief on the merits, in its entirety, and
26 ORDERS the action dismissed with prejudice.
27 / / /
28 / / /
Case 2:20-cv-05665-SHK Document 37 Filed 04/08/22 Page 2 of 40 Page ID #:1614
1 I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
2 In December 2018, Petitioner was convicted in Los Angeles County
3 Superior Court of two counts of second-degree robbery. ECF No. 28-1, Clerk’s
4 Transcript (“CT”) at 95.1 The trial court sentenced Petitioner to five years in state
5 prison. Id. at 128-133.
6 Petitioner filed a direct appeal to the California Court of Appeal raising the
7 Third Ground, and subparts (c), (d), and (e) of the Fourth Ground alleged in the
8 Second Amended Petition. ECF No. 28-7, Appellant’s Opening Brief (“AOB”).
9 The California Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in its entirety. ECF No. 8-
10 1. Petitioner’s ensuing Petition for Review to the California Supreme Court,
11 raising the same claims, was denied on May 13, 2020. ECF Nos. 8-2, 8-3. During
12 these federal proceedings, Petitioner filed a habeas petition in the California
13 Supreme Court raising claims generally corresponding to the first, second, fourth,
14 and fifth claims raised in the SAP. ECF No. 28-10. The California Supreme Court
15 summarily denied the Petition without comment or citation of authority on March
16 24, 2021. ECF No. 28-11.
17 On June 25, 2020, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
18 (“Petition”) in this Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. ECF No. 1. Respondent
19 filed a Motion to Dismiss the Petition on the grounds that only Grounds Three and
20 Four, subclaim (d) had been exhausted. ECF No. 7. Petitioner thereafter filed an
21 Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss. ECF No. 9. On January 11, 2021, the Court
22 issued an Order to Show Cause (“OSC”) why the Petition should not be dismissed
23 as a mixed petition. ECF No. 13. In the OSC, Petitioner was given the option to
24 show that Grounds One, Two, Four, and Five (in their entirety) were exhausted; to
25
26
1 The referenced page number for the state court records, filings, and opinions lodged by
27 Respondent will be the number assigned in those documents and not the page number associated
with the document through the ECF system. With respect to Petitioner’s filings, including the
28 Petition and Traverse, the referenced page numbers will be those assigned by the Court’s ECF
system.
2
Case 2:20-cv-05665-SHK Document 37 Filed 04/08/22 Page 3 of 40 Page ID #:1615
1 proceed only on the exhausted grounds: Ground Three, and subclaims (c), (d), and
2 (e) of Ground Four; or to request a stay under Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269
3 (2005) or Kelly v. Small, 315 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2003). Id.
4 Petitioner filed a motion to stay under Rhines, or alternatively, under Kelly,
5 along with a First Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. ECF No. 14. The
6 Court then issued an Order denying Respondent’s motion to dismiss as moot,
7 denying Petitioner’s request for a stay under Rhines, and granting Petitioner’s
8 request for a stay under Kelly. ECF No. 16. On April 9, 2021, Petitioner filed a
9 motion seeking leave to file a Second Amended Petition after all grounds
10 contained in the original petition had been denied by the California Supreme Court.
11 ECF No. 17. Concurrently therewith, Petitioner filed a Second Amended Petition,
12 which is the operative petition in this matter. ECF No. 18. The Court granted
13 Petitioner’s motion, filed the SAP, and ordered the stay in the action lifted in an
14 Order issued on April 29, 2021. ECF No. 19. In a separate order issued the same
15 day, the Court ordered Respondent to file a response to the SAP. ECF No. 20.
16 Following an extension of time, Respondent filed an Answer (“Answer”) to the
17 SAP, along with a supporting Memorandum of Points and Authorities (“Answer
18 Mem.”) on August 12, 2021. ECF No. 27. Petitioner filed a Traverse on
19 September 7, 2021. ECF No. 32. Petitioner’s subsequent motion for the
20 appointment of counsel, ECF No. 33, was denied in a minute order issued on
21 September 16, 2021. ECF No. 34.
22 II. PETITIONER’S CLAIMS
23 The Petition raises the following grounds for relief:
24 1. Petitioner’s convictions were obtained in violation of due process
25 because (a) the jury was not asked to clarify which charge Petitioner was
26 convicted of in count 1; (b) the jury was not given the written instruction
27 on the lesser included offense of petty theft; (c) the trial court’s
28 instruction on robbery failed to specify Petitioner’s culpability for the
3
Case 2:20-cv-05665-SHK Document 37 Filed 04/08/22 Page 4 of 40 Page ID #:1616
1 crime; and (d) Petitioner was actually convicted of second-degree
2 robbery under Cal. Penal Code § 212.5.
3 2. Petitioner was denied a fair trial because (a) counsel was not given
4 adequate time to prepare for trial; (b) the trial court improperly held a
5 lengthy conversation involving evidentiary issues in front of victim
6 Emily Sanchez; and (c) the judge failed to rule on a moral turpitude issue
7 involving the victim in count 2, Enrique Enriquez.
8 3. The prosecutor committed error in closing argument by: (a) misstating
9 testimony or evidence; (b) impugning defense counsel’s integrity; and (c)
10 appealing to the passion and sympathy of the jury.
11 4. Defense counsel was ineffective for failing to: (a) move for dismissal
12 based on constitutional violations raised during trial; (b) request an
13 instruction on the subjective and objective components of robbery; (c)
14 preserve an instructional error claim; (d) object to prosecutorial errors;
15 (e) request a continuance to prepare for trial; (f) properly argue a writ of
16 mandamus/motion to recuse; (g) argue Petitioner’s ability to pay fines
17 and fees at the sentencing hearing; and (h) request a curative instruction
18 after the trial court had a lengthy conversation in front of victim Sanchez.
19 5. The trial court improperly denied Petitioner’s Marsden motion.
20 6. Petitioner’s due process rights were violated when the California Court of
21 Appeal made certain findings on direct appeal.
22 ECF No. 18, SAP at 5-10; ECF No. 18-1, Attachment to Petition (“Pet. Att.”).
23 Respondent argues that subclaims (b) and (c) of Ground Four are procedurally
24 barred; that Ground Five and subclaim (g) of Ground Four are not cognizable; and
25 that the state court’s denial of all claims was neither contrary to nor involved an
26 unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court law. ECF No. 27,
27 Answer Mem. at 5-40.
28 / / /
4
Case 2:20-cv-05665-SHK Document 37 Filed 04/08/22 Page 5 of 40 Page ID #:1617
1 III. FACTUAL SUMMARY
2 Because Petitioner has not rebutted the correctness of the findings of fact
3 made by the California Court of Appeal regarding Petitioner’s appeal in state court
4 by clear and convincing evidence, the Court adopts the factual summary set forth
5 in the California Court of Appeal’s opinion affirming Petitioner’s conviction.
6 Tilcock v. Budge, 538 F.3d 1138, 1141 (9th Cir. 2008); 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1).
7 To the extent that an evaluation of Petitioner’s claims depends on an examination
8 of the trial record, the Court has made an independent evaluation of the record.
9 The relevant factual summary, as set out in the California Court of Appeal’s
10 Opinion, provides:
11 The evidence at trial established that at approximately 7:00 p.m.
on September 5, 2018, while working as a cashier at a Smart & Final
12
store in Los Angeles, Emily Sanchez (Sanchez) noticed appellant when
13 he stood near her register and “calmly” said, “I can’t find my card.”
As she was ringing up another customer, Sanchez told appellant she
14
could not help him. Appellant then reached over with his left hand and
15 took a $100 bill from atop Sanchez’s register—she had forgotten to put
the bill inside her register. Sanchez asked for the money back but
16
appellant loudly shouted, repeatedly cursed, and kept saying “fuck
17 this” and “I can’t find my card.”
Sanchez asked for assistance from her coworkers, Passion (last
18
name unreported) and Enrique Enriquez (Enriquez). Passion asked
19 appellant to give back the $100 bill, but appellant replied, “No. Fuck
that.” He appeared “angry,” was “flexing,” and kept dropping “F
20
bombs.” Sanchez was afraid for her own safety and for the safety of
21 her coworkers because “[a]nything could have happened within those
moments.” Sanchez had never experienced a robbery; she described it
22
as “a scary moment” and “pretty traumatic.” She began to move
23 towards the door and noticed patrons at the store backing away from
appellant as well.
24
Enriquez, a supervisor at Smart & Final, was about to walk out
25 to lunch when he noticed appellant being “loud” and shouting, “I want
my fucking card.” Enriquez “tried to calm him down” and told
26
appellant to “return the hundred-dollar bill and maybe we can help
27 you.” But Appellant replied, “Fuck your hundred-dollar bill,” and
pointed toward the cameras and told Passion and Enriquez to “go look
28
at the cameras so we can find out who took it or where it is.”
5
Case 2:20-cv-05665-SHK Document 37 Filed 04/08/22 Page 6 of 40 Page ID #:1618
Both Passion and Enriquez positioned themselves between
1
appellant and the doorway to prevent him from leaving the store with
2 the $100 bill. Appellant was “all over the place” and told Passion to
move out of the way; he “g[o]t in front of Passion using his body,
3
trying to make himself seem bigger,” kept flexing and trying to show
4 “his macho-ness,” and puffed out his chest and shoulders. He was
wearing short sleeves and “all his veins and his muscles” were visible.
5
Enriquez noticed appellant clenching something with a handle
6 that “resembled a hammer,” but he was not sure since it was wrapped
in a plastic bag. Sanchez also noticed appellant carrying something in
7
his hand; she could not, however, discern what the item was, as it was
8 “wrapped in white.”
9 Passion informed appellant she was calling 911, to which he
replied, “Report it. Thank you, I’m staying right here.” Passion told
10 the 911 operator appellant was acting “very violent, belligerent.”
11 Appellant again repeated, “Find my card. I don’t give a fuck about no
hundred dollars.” Although Passion told him, “That’s not how this
12 works,” appellant disagreed and replied, “That is how this works.”
13 After Passion ended the call, appellant attempted to leave and
Passion and Enriquez attempted to stall him. Enriquez felt like
14 appellant was “sizing [him] up.” Appellant “kept moving and moving
15 until he finally got around” Enriquez and Passion. Enriquez did not
use any force to keep appellant in the store or hold him down because
16 Enriquez was afraid things would escalate if he did, and he “was not
17 about to risk [himself].” Enriquez was in fear for himself and for his
co-workers; he believed appellant would physically harm him if he
18 approached closer. According to Enriquez, appellant’s body language
19 seemed like he was “trying to intimidate or scare.”
Appellant left the store with the $100 bill. A pickup truck pulled
20 up. Appellant got into the back of the truck and left. The police arrived
21 and arrested appellant “somewhere down the street” from the store.
The entire incident had lasted about 10 to 15 minutes.
22
23 ECF No. 8-1, California Court of Appeal’s Opinion in The People v. Kevin
24 Dunston, Case No. B295178 (“Cal. CoA Op.”) at 2-5.
25 / / /
26 / / /
27 / / /
28 / / /
6
Case 2:20-cv-05665-SHK Document 37 Filed 04/08/22 Page 7 of 40 Page ID #:1619
1 IV. STANDARD OF REVIEW
2 The standards in the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of
3 1996 (the “AEDPA”) and 28 U.S.C. § 2254 govern this Court’s review of this
4 SAP. As a result, and because the California Supreme Court summarily denied
5 Ground Three and subparts (c), (d), and (e) of Ground Four of the SAP, this Court
6 reviews the reasoning of the California Court of Appeal decision as to these
7 claims. See ECF Nos. 15-13 and 15-17; Wilson v. Sellers, 138 S. Ct. 1188, 1192
8 (2018) (holding “that the federal court should ‘look through’ the unexplained
9 decision to the last related state-court decision that does provide a relevant
10 rationale” and “should then presume that the unexplained decision adopted the
11 same reasoning”). As for Grounds One, Two, Five, and subparts (a), (b), (f), (g),
12 and (h) of Ground Four of the SAP, although there is no reasoned opinion denying
13 these claims, the Court is still required to uphold the California Supreme Court’s
14 summary denial so long as there is any reasonable basis in the record to support it.
15 See Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 102 (2011) (holding that a reviewing court
16 “must determine what arguments or theories supported or . . . could have supported
17 [ ] the state court’s decision” and “whether it is possible fairminded jurists could
18 disagree that those arguments or theories are inconsistent with” existing Supreme
19 Court precedent).
20 V. DISCUSSION
21 A. Habeas Relief Is Not Warranted With Respect to Petitioner’s Due
22 Process Claims (Ground One).
23 In Ground One, Petitioner claims that his right to due process was denied
24 when: (a) the jury was not asked to clarify which charge Petitioner was convicted
25 of in count 1; (b) the jury was not given the written instruction on the lesser
26 included offense of petty theft; (c) the trial court’s instruction on robbery failed to
27 specify Petitioner’s culpability for the crime; and (d) Petitioner was actually
28 / / /
7
Case 2:20-cv-05665-SHK Document 37 Filed 04/08/22 Page 8 of 40 Page ID #:1620
1 convicted of second-degree robbery under Cal. Penal Code § 212.5. ECF No. 18,
2 SAP at 5, 7.
3 1. Ground 1(a): The jury was not asked to clarify which
4 charge Petitioner was convicted of in count 1.
5 Petitioner contends that the record shows that the jury foreperson, Juror No.
6 2, signed a verdict form reflecting Petitioner was guilty of the lesser offense of
7 petty theft and that the jury was not asked to clarify whether it was convicting
8 Petitioner of robbery or petty theft. ECF No. 18, SAP at 5.
9 The Clerk’s Transcript reflects that the jury foreperson signed and dated the
10 verdict forms for “GUILTY of the crime of SECOND DEGREE ROBBERY” for
11 counts 1 and 2. ECF No. 28-1, CT at 95-96.2 On the verdict form for “Guilty of
12 the crime of Petty Theft,” “jury #2” is written on the foreperson signature line and
13 the form is dated; there is no signature. ECF No. 28-1, CT at 97.
14 After reviewing the verdict forms, the trial court found that the verdict forms
15 appeared to be correctly filled out and asked the clerk to read the verdicts. ECF
16 No. 28-6, 3 Reporter’s Transcript [“RT”] at 699. The clerk read as follows:
We, the jury in the above-entitled action, find the [Petitioner],
17
Kevin Dunston, guilty of the crime of second degree robbery, in
18 violation of Penal Code section 211, a felony, as charged in count 1 of
the information. [π] Dated December 4, 2018. Signed jury foreperson,
19
seat number 2. [ . . . ] We, the jury in the above-entitled action, find the
20 [Petitioner], Kevin Dunston, guilty of the crime of second degree
robbery in violation of Penal Code section 211, a felony, as charged in
21
count 2 of the information. [π] Dated December 4, 2018. Signed Jury
22 foreperson, seat number 2.
23 ECF No. 28-6, 3 RT at 699. The trial court then polled the jury – asking each
24 member to answer “yes” or “no” to the question “are these your verdicts?” Id. at
25 700. Each member of the jury responded “yes.” Id. at 700-701.
26 / / /
27
28
2 The foreperson’s signature has been “whited out” on the verdict forms, presumably to protect
that person’s identity.
8
Case 2:20-cv-05665-SHK Document 37 Filed 04/08/22 Page 9 of 40 Page ID #:1621
1 To be a valid conviction, the Constitution requires that all twelve jurors find
2 that the Government proved each element of the offense beyond a reasonable
3 doubt. Ramos v. Louisiana, 140 S. Ct. 1390, 1397 (2020). Here, although the
4 foreperson apparently dated and wrote in “jury #2” on one of the petty theft verdict
5 forms, the trial court found that the verdict forms had been filled out correctly.
6 The verdicts were read out loud, reflecting Petitioner’s guilt of two counts of
7 second-degree robbery, and the jurors were polled if those were in fact their
8 verdicts, to which all jurors responded “yes.” Thus, contrary to Petitioner’s
9 contention that the jury was not asked to clarify whether it was convicting
10 Petitioner of petty theft or of second-degree robbery, the jury did unanimously
11 confirm its intent to convict Petitioner of second-degree robbery. Petitioner
12 received all that the Constitution requires and habeas relief is denied on this claim.
13 2. Ground 1(b): The jury was not given the written instruction
14 on the lesser included offense of petty theft.
15 Petitioner contends that the jury was verbally instructed on the lesser
16 included offense of “petty theft” but that the instruction was not included with the
17 written instructions provided to the jurors, and that the written instructions that
18 were provided do not explain the culpability required for the crime. ECF No. 18,
19 SAP at 5.
20 a. The record below
21 Prior to reading the jury instructions out loud, the trial court passed out
22 individual copies of the instructions to each of the jurors. ECF No. 28-6, 3 RT at
23 626-627. The jurors were advised that they could write their initials on their own
24 copies and would be permitted to take the instructions into the jury room to use.
25 Id. Regarding petty theft, the trial court verbally instructed the jury as follows, in
26 pertinent part:
Petty theft is a lesser included offense of robbery in the second
27
degree. [. . .] Every person who steals, takes, carries, leaves or drives
28 away the personal property of another, with the specific intent to
9
Case 2:20-cv-05665-SHK Document 37 Filed 04/08/22 Page 10 of 40 Page ID #:1622
deprive the owner permanently of his or her property, is guilty of the
1
crime of theft by larceny. [. . . ]
2 [π]
If you are not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the
3
defendant is guilty of the crime charged, you may nevertheless convict
4 him of any lesser crime if you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt
that the defendant is guilty of the lesser crime.
5
6 Id. at 643-644.
7 The state court record does not contain a complete copy of the written jury
8 instructions. See ECF No. 28-1, 1 CT at 81-94. Although Petitioner’s counsel on
9 direct appeal moved to augment the state court record with a complete copy of the
10 instructions, ECF No. 28-2, Supplemental CT (“SCT”) at 4-5, a deputy clerk for
11 the Los Angeles County Superior Court responded that the deputy clerk had
12 checked the original documents of the jury instructions given in the court file and
13 they are the same documents provided in the Clerk’s Transcript on Appeal, ECF
14 No. 28-2, SCT at 3.
15 b. Analysis
16 The record is clear that the jury was verbally instructed on the definition and
17 elements of petty theft. The record is also clear that the jury was provided with the
18 written form of the instructions that the trial court read. Indeed, the trial court
19 advised the jury to “turn to page 3 of the jury instructions” as it began reading the
20 instructions out loud. ECF No. 28-6, 3 RT at 627. Had the written instructions on
21 petty theft been missing from the written form of the instructions provided, it is
22 unfathomable that no one in the court room would have drawn that to the trial
23 court’s attention. Instead, the record supports the finding that the verbal
24 instructions given to the jury were provided in written form despite their absence
25 from the Clerk’s Transcript.
26 Even if this Court were to find that the written jury instruction on petty theft
27 was omitted from the instructions provided to the jury, the Supreme Court has
28 never held that a criminal defendant has a constitutional right to have the jury
10
Case 2:20-cv-05665-SHK Document 37 Filed 04/08/22 Page 11 of 40 Page ID #:1623
1 provided with written jury instructions when the jury has already been provided
2 verbal jury instructions. See United States v. Jones, 353 F.3d 816, 819 (9th Cir.
3 2003) (“[w]hile providing the jury with written instructions has become
4 increasingly common in the past decades, it is not automatically required”); Turner
5 v. Diaz, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113989, at *35-*36 (C.D. Cal. April 1, 2021)
6 (“Neither the United States Supreme Court nor we have ever held that oral jury
7 instructions are ineffectual unless augmented by written copies of the same
8 instructions[.]”) (citation omitted).
9 Therefore, the state court’s rejection of this claim could not have been
10 contrary to or involved an unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme
11 Court law and habeas relief is denied on this claim. Brewer v. Hall, 378 F.3d 952,
12 955 (9th Cir. 2004) (“If no Supreme Court precedent creates clearly established
13 federal law relating to the legal issue the habeas petitioner raised in state court, the
14 state court’s decision cannot be contrary to or an unreasonable application of
15 clearly established federal law.”); Wright v. Van Patten, 552 U.S. 120, 126 (2008)
16 (per curiam) (“Because our cases give no clear answer to the question presented,
17 let alone one in [the petitioner’s] favor, it cannot be said that the state court
18 unreasonabl[y] appli[ed] clearly established Federal law.” (internal quotation
19 marks and citation omitted)).
20 3. Ground 1(c): The trial court’s instruction on robbery failed
21 to specify Petitioner’s culpability for the crime
22 Petitioner claims that the written jury instructions do not include the
23 culpability required to convict Petitioner of robbery under Cal. Penal Code § 211.
24 ECF No. 18, SAP at 5. Petitioner’s claim is not supported by the record.
25 The trial court instructed the jury as follows with respect to the “Culpability
26 For Crime” (CALJIC No. 3.31) of robbery:
In the crimes charged in counts 1 and 2, namely, robbery in the
27
second degree and petty theft, which is a lesser crime thereto, there
28 must exist a union or joint operation of act or conduct and a certain
11
Case 2:20-cv-05665-SHK Document 37 Filed 04/08/22 Page 12 of 40 Page ID #:1624
specific intent in the mind of the perpetrator. Unless this specific intent
1
exists, the crime to which it relates is not committed. [π] The specific
2 intent required is included in the definitions of the crimes set forth
elsewhere in these instructions.
3
4 ECF No. 28-6, 3 RT at 639; ECF No. 28-1, 1 CT at 89.
5 The jury was also instructed on the specific intent for robbery under CALJIC
6 No. 9.40.2:
To constitute the crime of robbery, the perpetrator must have
7
formed the specific intent to permanently deprive an owner of his or her
8 property before or at the time that the act of taking the property
occurred. [π] If this intent was not formed until after the property was
9
taken from the person, or [in the] immediate presence of the victim, the
10 crime of robbery has not been committed.
11 ECF No. 28-6, 3 RT at 641; ECF No. 28-1, 1 CT at 90.
12 Thus, the record reflects that the jury was instructed on the culpability
13 required to convict Petitioner of robbery and habeas relief is denied on this claim.
14 4. Ground 1(d): Petitioner was actually convicted of second-
15 degree robbery under Cal. Penal Code § 212.5
16 Petitioner contends he was charged with violating Cal. Penal Code § 211 but
17 was convicted of violating Cal. Penal Code § 212.5. ECF No. 18, SAP at 5.
18 Petitioner provides no evidence in support of this claim, and it is in fact
19 contradicted by the record.
20 The court clerk read the verdicts allowed, as set forth above in the Court’s
21 analysis of Ground 1(a), and those verdicts reflected two convictions of Cal. Penal
22 Code § 211. ECF No. 28-6, 3 RT at 699. The jurors were polled as to whether
23 those verdicts were correct and all jurors answered yes. Id. at 700-701. The
24 verdict forms in the Clerk’s Transcript also reflect convictions under Cal. Penal
25 Code § 211, ECF No. 28-1, 1 CT at 95-96, and the trial court sentenced Petitioner
26 for convictions of robbery under Cal. Penal Code § 211. ECF No. 28-6, 3 RT at
27 917-918; ECF No. 28-1, 1 CT at 131. As the record wholly contradicts Petitioner’s
28 allegations, habeas relief is denied on this claim.
12
Case 2:20-cv-05665-SHK Document 37 Filed 04/08/22 Page 13 of 40 Page ID #:1625
1 B. Habeas Relief Is Not Warranted With Respect To Petitioner’s
2 Claim That He Was Denied A Fair Trial (Ground Two).
3 In Ground Two, Petitioner makes several allegations in support of his claim
4 that he was denied a fair trial: (a) counsel was not given adequate time to prepare
5 for trial; (b) the trial court improperly held a lengthy discussion regarding
6 evidentiary issues with the attorneys in front of victim Emily Sanchez, and (c) the
7 trial court failed to rule on a moral turpitude issue involving victim Enrique
8 Enriquez.
9 1. Ground 2(a): counsel was not given adequate time to
10 prepare for trial
11 In Ground 2(a), Petitioner claims that he was denied a fair trial because
12 defense counsel was not given adequate time to prepare for trial. ECF No. 18,
13 SAP at 5-6.
14 The state court record reflects that on November 27, 2018, Petitioner’s
15 attorney (Deputy Public Defender Omid Haghighat) advised the trial court that he
16 was not available for trial on November 29, 2018. ECF No. 28-1, 1 CT at 75.
17 Petitioner refused to waive time for his trial to start and the case was sent to the
18 department that assigns a trial court. Id. On November 29, 2018, Petitioner was
19 represented by Deputy Public Defender Michael J. King, who, along with the
20 prosecutor, announced “ready” for trial. Id. at 76.
21 The same day, before the trial court, Petitioner stated, “in order for me to
22 receive a fair trial, which is guaranteed to me under the Constitution, he has to be
23 given adequate time to study the case. In order for him to do that, I have to waive
24 my constitutional right to a fair and speedy trial . . . .” ECF No. 28-5, 2 RT at 6.
25 Petitioner then requested that the trial court dismiss his case on those grounds,
26 among others. Id. The trial court denied the motion and the trial proceeded. Id.
27 There is no evidence before this Court (and none before the state court) that
28 Petitioner’s counsel was not prepared for trial. While it is unclear exactly when
13
Case 2:20-cv-05665-SHK Document 37 Filed 04/08/22 Page 14 of 40 Page ID #:1626
1 Petitioner’s counsel was appointed, it is clear that he felt he had adequate time to
2 prepare for this relatively straight-forward case involving a single incident and
3 only two state witnesses. Trial counsel himself did not state that he was
4 unprepared for trial at any time before trial commenced, nor did he request a
5 continuance. Rather, he announced “ready” for trial. On this record, there is
6 simply no basis for finding that the rejection of this claim ran afoul of the AEDPA.
7 Habeas relief is therefore denied on this claim.
8 2. Ground 2(b): the trial court improperly held a lengthy
9 discussion regarding evidentiary issues with the attorneys in
10 front of victim Emily Sanchez
11 Petitioner contends that he was denied a fair trial because the trial court
12 engaged in a lengthy conversation involving “eviden[t]iary factors” in the presence
13 of Count 1 victim Emily Sanchez. ECF No. 18, SAP at 6.
14 a. Proceedings in the trial court
15 During Sanchez’s testimony at trial, the trial court took a break at Sanchez’s
16 request. ECF No. 28-5, 2 RT 353-54. The trial court dismissed the jury for several
17 minutes. Id. at 354. Sanchez stepped outside to use the restroom. Id. Off the
18 record, the trial court and counsel held a discussion regarding § 1101(b) evidence,3
19 which the trial court found admissible. Id. at 355. The trial court then advised
20 defense counsel that he had misstated the law on the intent required for robbery in
21 his opening statement. Id. at 355-356. A discussion ensued about the § 1101(b)
22 evidence and counsel’s thoughts on the intent required for robbery. Counsel first
23 argued that there was inadequate notice given of the prosecution’s intent to use
24 § 1101(b) evidence and that he had inadequate time to investigate whether he can
25 rebut the evidence. Id. at 356-357. Counsel and the trial court then engaged in a
26
27
3 Cal. Evid. Code § 1101(b) addresses the admissibility of evidence that a person committed a
28 crime, civil wrong, or other act when relevant to prove some fact other than his or her disposition
to commit such an act.
14
Case 2:20-cv-05665-SHK Document 37 Filed 04/08/22 Page 15 of 40 Page ID #:1627
1 discussion regarding the “intent” required under robbery. Counsel argued that the
2 use of fear has to be related to the intent to deprive; that the fear is directly related
3 to taking the property. Id. at 357-358. As the discussion continued, counsel
4 interrupted the trial court, stating: “Your Honor, I’m sorry to interrupt, but this is
5 all in front of the witness, so actually I would request to argue this not in front of
6 this witness, because this may be paramount to her testimony as well.” Id. at 358.
7 The trial court stated, “all right. Well, then we will do it later.” Id.
8 b. Analysis
9 Although it is unclear when exactly witness Sanchez returned to the
10 courtroom, it is clear that she was present for at least part of the discussion that
11 occurred between the trial court and counsel. In any event, it is pure speculation
12 on Petitioner’s part that Sanchez’s presence during part of the discussion between
13 the trial court and counsel had any effect whatsoever on the trial. Petitioner does
14 not allege or prove that Sanchez’s testimony was somehow different (exaggerated,
15 perjured, “not the whole truth,” etc.) because of what she might have overheard.
16 Nor was Sanchez—a witness (not a juror)—directly involved in deciding
17 Petitioner’s guilt of the crimes; thus, her overhearing a discussion regarding the
18 intent required for robbery could not have impacted the deliberations or the verdict.
19 There is simply no evidence that Sanchez’s presence for part of the discussion—
20 assuming she overhead anything—had any effect on the trial. In any event, the
21 Court concurs with Respondent that there is no clearly established Supreme Court
22 law finding that this scenario violates the Constitution. As such, the state court’s
23 rejection of this claim could not have been contrary to or have involved an
24 unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court law and habeas
25 relief is denied on this claim.
26 / / /
27 / / /
28 / / /
15
Case 2:20-cv-05665-SHK Document 37 Filed 04/08/22 Page 16 of 40 Page ID #:1628
1 3. Ground 2(c): the trial court failed to rule on a moral
2 turpitude issue involving victim Enrique Enriquez
3 In Ground 2(c), Petitioner contends that he was denied a fair trial because
4 the trial court failed to rule on a moral turpitude issue involving the victim, Enrique
5 Enriquez, in count two. ECF No. 18, SAP at 6.
6 a. The record below
7 After the jury was empaneled but before the commencement of trial, defense
8 counsel requested that he be permitted to impeach Enriquez with a prior
9 misdemeanor conviction for battery. ECF No. 28-5, 2 RT at 33-34. The trial court
10 responded that it believed battery was a crime of moral turpitude, but indicated it
11 would look it up, and further, that the conviction did not seem to have been too
12 remote in time. Id. The trial court indicated that it would “get back to” defense
13 counsel on whether the witness could be impeached with the battery conviction,
14 and that if it is a crime of moral turpitude, he would allow defense counsel to use it
15 at trial. Id. at 35. The trial court indicated it would address the issue the following
16 Monday. Id. at 36.
17 There was no further discussion regarding the matter the following Monday,
18 ECF No. 28-5, 2 RT at 301-319, and Enriquez was never questioned about the
19 battery. Id. at 391-410, 425-458. As Respondent points out, the record is silent as
20 to whether a ruling may have been issued off the record. ECF No. 27, Answer
21 Mem. at 12 n.6.
22 b. Analysis
23 Challenges to a state trial court’s evidentiary rulings are not cognizable on
24 federal habeas review unless the admission or exclusion of evidence violated a
25 defendant’s due process right to a fair trial. Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68
26 (1991). Petitioner has failed to show that the exclusion of this misdemeanor
27 battery conviction had any effect on the trial, let alone that it denied him a fair trial.
28 Further, the Supreme Court has expressly found that, no decision of the Court
16
Case 2:20-cv-05665-SHK Document 37 Filed 04/08/22 Page 17 of 40 Page ID #:1629
1 clearly establishes that the exclusion of extrinsic evidence to impeach a witness’s
2 credibility for reasons such as the unfair embarrassment of the victim, surprise to
3 the prosecution, or unduly prolonging the trial, violates the Constitution. Nevada
4 v. Jackson, 569 U.S. 505, 511 (2013); see also Brown v. Horell, 644 F.3d 969, 983
5 (9th Cir. 2011) (“[T]he Supreme Court has not decided any case either ‘squarely
6 address[ing]’ the discretionary exclusion of evidence and the right to present a
7 complete defense or ‘establish[ing] a controlling legal standard’ for evaluating
8 such exclusions.”)
9 Additionally, this Court has found no Supreme Court holding to the effect
10 that the exclusion of extrinsic evidence to impeach a witness’s credibility because
11 the trial court ultimately failed to rule on the issue and defense counsel failed to
12 bring the issue up again—assuming that is what happened here—violates the
13 Constitution. Again, where there is no clearly established Supreme Court law on
14 the issue, the state court’s rejection of the claim could not have been contrary to or
15 involved an unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court law.
16 Therefore, habeas relief is denied on this claim.
17 C. Habeas Relief Is Not Warranted With Respect To Petitioner’s
18 Prosecutorial Misconduct Claims (Ground Three).
19 In Ground Three, Petitioner contends that the prosecutor committed error in
20 the following respects: (a) misstating the testimony of a witness regarding the EBT
21 card; (b) impugning defense counsel’s integrity; and (c) improperly appealing to
22 the jurors’ passions and sympathy. ECF No. 18, SAP at 6, 8.
23 1. Applicable Federal Law
24 Federal habeas review of prosecutorial misconduct claims is limited to the
25 narrow issue of whether the alleged misconduct violated due process. Donnelly v.
26 DeChristoforo, 416 U.S. 637, 642-43 (1974); Thompson v. Borg, 74 F.3d 1571,
27 1576 (9th Cir. 1996) (citation omitted). Misconduct is reviewed in light of the
28 entire trial record, and relief will be granted only if the misconduct by itself
17
Case 2:20-cv-05665-SHK Document 37 Filed 04/08/22 Page 18 of 40 Page ID #:1630
1 infected the trial with unfairness. Donnelly, 416 U.S. at 639-643; see also Darden
2 v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168, 182-83 (1986).
3 The same standard applies to a habeas claim based on prosecutorial
4 misconduct arising from improper argument. Greer v. Miller, 483 U.S. 756, 765-
5 66 (1987); Darden, 477 U.S. at 181-83; Tak Sun Tan v. Runnels, 413 F.3d 1101,
6 1112 (9th Cir. 2005) (“[U]nder Darden, the first issue is whether the prosecutor’s
7 remarks were improper and, if so, whether they infected the trial with
8 unfairness.”). “It ‘is not enough that the prosecutors’ remarks were undesirable or
9 even universally condemned.’” Allen v. Woodford, 395 F.3d 979, 997 (9th Cir.
10 2005) (as amended) (internal quotations and citations omitted); see also Hein v.
11 Sullivan, 601 F.3d 897, 912-913 (9th Cir. 2010) (“In determining whether a
12 comment rendered a trial constitutionally unfair, factors we may consider are
13 whether the comment misstated the evidence, whether the judge admonished the
14 jury to disregard the comment, whether the comment was invited by defense
15 counsel in its summation, whether defense counsel had an adequate opportunity to
16 rebut the comment, the prominence of the comment in the context of the entire trial
17 and the weight of the evidence.), cert. denied, 563 U.S. 935 (2011).
18 2. Petitioner’s Claims
19 a. Ground 3(a): misstating the testimony of a witness
20 regarding the EBT card
21 (i) Petitioner’s argument
22 Petitioner contends that the prosecutor misstated the testimony of a witness
23 when the prosecutor stated, “if the argument is he was just looking for a card you
24 would have heard evidence of that.” ECF No. 18, SAP at 6. Citing the testimony
25 of both prosecution witnesses, Petitioner claims that there was evidence that
26 Petitioner was searching for his EBT card during the incident. Id.
27 On direct appeal, Petitioner argued that the prosecutor developed two
28 “themes” to try to convince the jury that Petitioner was guilty: (1) Petitioner’s
18
Case 2:20-cv-05665-SHK Document 37 Filed 04/08/22 Page 19 of 40 Page ID #:1631
1 requests for help finding his EBT card were a ruse and (2) a guilty verdict would
2 protect the jurors and public safety. ECF No. 28-7, AOB at 22. Petitioner
3 contended that the prosecutor asked the jury to consider whether Petitioner was
4 simply looking for help or whether he was looking to get away with a hundred
5 bucks, and he urged them to find that his requests for help were a ruse—part of a
6 premeditated plan to steal the $100 bill. Id. The prosecutor, Petitioner argued, told
7 the jury that one of the “biggest problems” with the case was the fact that the only
8 person saying that it was an EBT card was the defense, and that there was not “one
9 iota” of evidence that this was a food stamps card. Id. at 24 (citing 3 RT at 674).
10 The prosecutor argued, per Petitioner, that the testimony was only that “a card”
11 was missing—which, the prosecutor argued, could have been a debit card, a credit
12 card, or “anything.” Id. (citing 3 RT at 674). The prosecutor argued that the
13 defense theory was not credible because the defense had failed to prove that
14 Petitioner had actually obtained an EBT card. Id. Defense counsel objected to the
15 prosecutor’s argument as improper and “burden shifting,” and the trial court
16 overruled the objections. Id. (citing 3 RT at 652-653).
17 Petitioner argued on appeal that the prosecutor erroneously shifted the
18 burden of proof to the defense by urging the jury to find Petitioner guilty because
19 the defense had failed to prove he had an EBT card, and further argued that the
20 prosecutor misstated the evidence by claiming that no evidence showed Petitioner
21 said the card he wanted help finding was an EBT card. ECF No. 28-7, AOB at 27.4
22 (ii) California Court of Appeal Opinion
23 The California Court of Appeal rejected Petitioner’s claim that the
24 prosecutor misstated the evidence. It found that the transcript of the 911 call
25 confirmed that Petitioner never specified the type of card he had lost and that he
26 repeatedly said, “[f]ind my card” or “[f]ind my fucking card” but never said “find
27
28
4 In the SAP, Petitioner does not appear to argue that the prosecutor engaged in burden shifting
but rather focuses on the alleged misstatement of the evidence.
19
Case 2:20-cv-05665-SHK Document 37 Filed 04/08/22 Page 20 of 40 Page ID #:1632
1 my EBT card.” ECF No. 8-1, Cal. CoA Op. at 11. It then rejected Petitioner’s
2 claim that Enriquez repeatedly stated on cross-examination that the card was an
3 EBT card and that he “specifically testified” that Petitioner asked for his EBT card.
4 Id. It found that the exchange on direct exam proceeded as follows:
5
Q: He was asking for a card? Did he say what kind of card?
6 A: I believe it was going to be like an EBT card.
Q: And what kind of words was he using, specifically? If you can
7
recall . . . .
8 A: He was shouting, “I want my fucking card.”
9 Id. (italics added in Court of Appeal opinion).
10 The court of appeal did not agree with Petitioner that Enriquez “specifically
11 testified” Petitioner was looking for an EBT card; rather, it interpreted his
12 testimony to reflect that Enriquez later learned or was told Petitioner was referring
13 to his EBT card. Id. It found that when Enriquez was asked to repeat the words
14 Petitioner had “specifically” used, he confirmed that Petitioner had not specified it
15 was an EBT card.
16 (iii) Analysis
17 The Court concurs with the California Court of Appeal’s findings regarding
18 Enriquez’s testimony. Enriquez did not testify that Petitioner used the word
19 “EBT”; rather, his testimony reflected his belief that Petitioner was referring to an
20 EBT card. Enriquez’s belief is not testimony to a fact. The Court has no basis for
21 finding that the trial court and the court of appeal’s finding that the prosecutor did
22 not misstate Enriquez’s testimony was erroneous.
23 Petitioner also argued on direct appeal and argues in the SAP that Emily
24 Sanchez testified that Petitioner was looking for his EBT card. ECF No. 18, SAP
25 at 6. Petitioner admitted on appeal that her testimony on this point was
26 inconsistent. ECF No. 28-7, AOB at 31, 31 n.9.
27 The record reflects the following testimony by Sanchez relevant to this
28 issue, on direct exam:
20
Case 2:20-cv-05665-SHK Document 37 Filed 04/08/22 Page 21 of 40 Page ID #:1633
Q: When did you first notice Mr. Dunston? – at what point?
1
A: When I saw him in front of me – in front of the register.
2 Q: Did he say anything to you?
A: “I can’t find my card.”
3
4 ECF No. 28-5, 2 RT at 345.
5 Q: To this point have you heard him shout: “Help me. I lost my EBT
card[?”] Or ask anyone for help at this point?
6
A: I don’t remember.
7
Id. at 350.
8
Q: Did you hear him come up to you and ask you for help before this?
9 A: He did ask, “Where’s my card?”
10 Id. at 350-351.
11 Q: Is he saying anything to you at this point?
A: “Fuck that. I can’t find my card.”
12
Q: He kept saying, “I can’t find my card?”
13 A: Hmm-mm.
14 Id. at 352.
15 On cross-examination, the following questioning took place on the issue of
16 the EBT card:
17
Q: At some point Mr. Dunston said that he didn’t give a fuck about
18 the hundred-dollar bill; he wanted to find his EBT card?
A: He didn’t tell me that.
19
Q: Do you remember him saying that?
20 A: Yes.
21 Id. at 378.
22 The California Court of Appeal did not refer to Sanchez’s testimony in its
23 denial of this claim. However, the Court finds that its denial of the claim is
24 nonetheless supported because, in this Court’s assessment, the prosecutor did not
25 misstate the testimony regarding the EBT card insofar as Emily Sanchez was
26 concerned.5 Sanchez gave no specific testimony herself that Petitioner was trying
27
28 5 Richter, 562 U.S. at 102 (holding that the reviewing court “must determine what arguments or
theories supported or . . . could have supported[] the state court’s decision” and must ask
21
Case 2:20-cv-05665-SHK Document 37 Filed 04/08/22 Page 22 of 40 Page ID #:1634
1 to find his EBT card. Every time she quoted Petitioner, she stated that he was
2 looking for his “card.” Counsel’s question on cross-examination that elicited a
3 “yes” response from Sanchez was a general question—not a quotation—about
4 Petitioner’s state of mind: “At some point, [Petitioner] said that he didn’t give a
5 fuck about the hundred-dollar bill; he wanted to find his EBT card?” ECF No. 28-
6 5, 2 RT at 378. To that, she responded that he did not tell her that. Id. When
7 asked if she remembered him saying that, she said “yes.” Id. It is not clear to the
8 Court that Sanchez was responding “yes” to Petitioner wanting to find his EBT
9 card as opposed to her confirming the idea that he did not care about the hundred
10 dollars but was focused on finding his “card.”
11 In any event, the Court has no basis for finding that the prosecutor’s
12 argument regarding the lack of evidence that Petitioner was looking for his EBT
13 card rendered the trial fundamentally unfair. The jury heard the evidence itself and
14 could discern whether either witness testified that Petitioner was searching for his
15 EBT card. Further, defense counsel had an opportunity, and did, argue in closing
16 that the evidence showed Petitioner was looking for his EBT card and had no
17 intent to permanently deprive the store of the $100 but was rather using it to
18 “negotiate” for help finding his card. ECF No. 28-6, 3 RT at 671.
19 Finally, the evidence against Petitioner was strong. The testimony showed
20 that he grabbed a $100 bill that was lying on top of the cash register drawer; that
21 Sanchez and her coworker asked him to return the money, and that he responded,
22 “No. Fuck that.” ECF No. 28-5, 2 RT at 351-53, 360. Petitioner got in front of
23 the coworker, shouting and “making himself seem bigger,” and cursed and shouted
24 at the store supervisor (Enriquez) when asked to return the money. Id. at 365, 400-
25 402, 407-08, 447. Sanchez and Enriquez also testified to their fear during the
26 incident, id. at 389, 406, 447, and that Petitioner left the store without returning the
27
28 “whether it is possible fairminded jurists could disagree that those arguments or theories are
inconsistent with” existing Supreme Court precedent).
22
Case 2:20-cv-05665-SHK Document 37 Filed 04/08/22 Page 23 of 40 Page ID #:1635
1 money. Id. at 370, 407. On this record, the Court cannot find that the prosecutor’s
2 argument, even if it did misstate the evidence, amounted to a constitutional
3 violation and habeas relief is denied on this claim.
4 b. Ground 3(b): impugning defense counsel’s integrity
5 In Ground 3(b), Petitioner contends that the prosecutor impugned defense
6 counsel’s integrity by arguing that defense counsel fabricated a sham defense as a
7 ploy to gain the jury’s sympathy. ECF No. 18, SAP at 8.
8 (i) The Record Below
9 During closing argument, the prosecutor argued:
10 One of the biggest problems I have with this case is also the card
11 issue. [ . . .] Go listen to that 9-1-1 call. The only person that is saying
it’s an EBT card is the defense, the defense attorney. He never says,
12 “My EBT card” or “my food stamps.” This is a ploy to try to gain
13 sympathy. Just as it’s a ruse to try to distract so he can grab money
from a register. Anything to make you feel sympathetic. That’s a good
14 defense attorney’s job, and Mr. King is a great defense attorney. [π]
15 There is no evidence that this was a food stamps card. Not one iota.
16 ECF No. 28-5, 3 RT at 674.
17 Defense counsel objected on the grounds that the argument misstated the
18 evidence. Id. The trial court overruled the objection.
19 (ii) California Court of Appeal Opinion
20 The California Court of Appeal rejected this claim on direct review, finding
21 that the claim had been forfeited because defense counsel failed to object to the
22 argument on the basis that the prosecutor’s argument amounted to impugning
23 defense counsel. ECF No. 8-1, Cal. CoA Op. at 12. The court of appeal also
24 found that defense counsel did not seek a curative admonition at the time of the
25 alleged misconduct. Id. The court of appeal went on to find that the prosecutor
26 did not commit error in making the argument. It reasoned: “[T]he prosecutor’s
27 remark that defense counsel was the ‘only person . . . saying it’s an EBT card’ was
28 true, as [Petitioner] himself was never heard calling his card an EBT card.” Id. at
23
Case 2:20-cv-05665-SHK Document 37 Filed 04/08/22 Page 24 of 40 Page ID #:1636
1 13. The court of appeal found that rather than accusing defense counsel of
2 fabricating a defense or attacking counsel’s integrity, he was permissibly
3 criticizing defense counsel’s argument. Id. Because the court of appeal found no
4 error, it declined to consider Petitioner’s contention that counsel had performed
5 ineffectively in failing to object. Id.
6 (iii) Analysis
7 (a) Procedural Default
8 Respondent contends that this claim is procedurally defaulted based on the
9 California Court of Appeal’s finding that Petitioner forfeited the argument by
10 failing to object on the same ground at trial. ECF No. 27, Answer Mem. at 21.
11 In order for a claim to be procedurally defaulted for federal habeas corpus
12 purposes, the opinion of the last state court rendering a judgment in the case must
13 “clearly and expressly” indicate that its judgment rests on a state procedural bar.
14 See Harris v. Reed, 489 U.S. 255, 263 (1989) (citation omitted); see also Coleman
15 v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 729-35 (1991), modified by Martinez v. Ryan, 566
16 U.S. 1, 14-17 (2012). “If the intermediate appellate court judgment rests on
17 procedural default and the state supreme court denies review without explanation,
18 the federal courts will consider the claim procedurally defaulted.” Thomas v.
19 Goldsmith, 979 F.2d 746, 749 (9th Cir. 1992), abrogated in part on other grounds
20 by D.A.’s Office v. Osborne, 557 U.S. 52, 68 (2009). Further, “the application of
21 the state procedural rule must provide ‘an adequate and independent state law
22 basis’ on which the state court can deny relief.” Park v. California, 202 F.3d 1146,
23 1151 (9th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted). To be adequate, a state law ground
24 dismissing a habeas petition must be “regularly and consistently applied.” Bennett
25 v. Mueller, 322 F.3d 573, 585-86 (9th Cir. 2003) (as amended). “For a state
26 procedural rule to be ‘independent,’ the state law ground for decision must not be
27 ‘interwoven with the federal law.’” Park, 202 F.3d at 1152.
28 / / /
24
Case 2:20-cv-05665-SHK Document 37 Filed 04/08/22 Page 25 of 40 Page ID #:1637
1 In Bennett, 322 F.3d at 586, the Ninth Circuit held that, “[o]nce the state has
2 adequately pled the existence of an independent and adequate state procedural
3 ground as an affirmative defense, the burden to place that defense in issue shifts to
4 the petitioner.” A petitioner could satisfy this burden “by asserting specific factual
5 allegations that demonstrate the inadequacy of the state procedure, including
6 citation to authority demonstrating inconsistent application of the rule.” Id. Once
7 the petitioner has placed a procedural rule in issue, “the ultimate burden of proving
8 the adequacy of the [] state bar is upon the [s]tate.” See id. at 585-86.
9 Under California law, the failure to interpose a specific and timely objection
10 in the trial court on the ground advanced for review independently serves as a
11 procedural bar to consideration of the issue by the appellate courts. See, e.g.,
12 People v. Alvarez, 14 Cal. 4th 155, 186 (Cal. 1996) (failure to object to admission
13 of evidence); People v. Cleveland, 32 Cal. 4th 704, 736 (Cal. 2004) (failure to
14 object to comment made by prospective juror); People v. Saunders, 5 Cal. 4th 580,
15 590 (Cal. 1993) (failure to object to discharge of jury before it had determined the
16 truth of the alleged prior convictions). It appears that the California Court of
17 Appeal clearly and expressly invoked the foregoing procedural bar when it
18 concluded that Petitioner had forfeited the issue by failing to object to the
19 argument on the basis asserted on appeal. The Ninth Circuit has held that this rule
20 has been consistently applied when a party has failed to make any objection to the
21 admission of the evidence. Melendez v. Pliler, 288 F.3d 1120, 1125 (9th Cir.
22 2002) (citation omitted). Here, Petitioner’s counsel did object to the argument he
23 now challenges, though the objection was not on the basis asserted here.
24 Petitioner, however, makes no “specific factual allegations that demonstrate the
25 inadequacy of the state procedure.” Bennett, 322 F.3d at 586.
26 The failure to comply with a state’s procedural rule results in a default that
27 bars federal consideration of the issue unless the petitioner can demonstrate both
28 / / /
25
Case 2:20-cv-05665-SHK Document 37 Filed 04/08/22 Page 26 of 40 Page ID #:1638
1 “cause” for the default and actual “prejudice” as a result of the alleged violation of
2 federal law. Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 750-51 (1991).
3 In Murray v. Carrier, the Supreme Court stated that “constitutionally
4 ineffective assistance of counsel . . . is cause for a procedural default.” 477 U.S.
5 478, 488 (1986); see also Bonin v. Calderon, 77 F.3d 1155, 1158 (9th Cir. 1996).
6 However, the Supreme Court also stated that “[a]ttorney error short of ineffective
7 assistance of counsel does not constitute cause for a procedural default.” Murray,
8 477 U.S. at 492; see also Cooper v. Neven, 641 F.3d 322, 327 (9th Cir. 2011) (“An
9 objective factor outside of a petitioner’s control (e.g., ineffective assistance of
10 counsel or a basis for the claim that was previously unavailable) could constitute
11 cause.”); Bonin, 77 F.3d at 1158 (“counsel’s ineffectiveness will constitute cause
12 only if it amounts to an ‘independent constitutional violation’”). The Supreme
13 Court has also stated that a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel must be
14 presented to the state courts as an independent claim before it may be used to
15 establish cause for a procedural default, see Murray, 477 U.S. at 489, and must not
16 itself be procedurally defaulted. See Edwards v. Carpenter, 529 U.S. 446, 450-454
17 (2000).
18 In Ground Four of the SAP, Petitioner claims that defense counsel was
19 ineffective in failing to object to the prosecutor’s argument on the ground that he
20 was impugning defense counsel’s integrity. ECF No. 18, SAP at 6; ECF No. 8-3.
21 This ineffective assistance of counsel claim was alleged (and summarily denied) in
22 the Petition for Review to the California Supreme Court. ECF No. 8-2, Petition for
23 Review at 36-37. The Court need not decide this procedural default issue in the
24 interests of judicial economy where, as here, the procedural default issue is
25 complex—and would require the Court to assess the merits of the claim to decide
26 the ineffective assistance of counsel argument in any event—and the claim clearly
27 fails on its merits. See Lambrix v. Singletary, 520 U.S. 518, 525 (1997).
28 / / /
26
Case 2:20-cv-05665-SHK Document 37 Filed 04/08/22 Page 27 of 40 Page ID #:1639
1 (b) The merits
2 1) Prosecutorial Misconduct
3 The Court concurs with the court of appeal that the prosecutor did not
4 commit error or impugn defense counsel’s integrity, and that instead, he was
5 permissibly commenting on the lack of evidence that Petitioner was searching for
6 his EBT card. The Court has reviewed the record and neither prosecution witness
7 quoted Petitioner as having asked for help looking for his EBT card; rather, it was
8 stated that Petitioner was looking for his (unspecified) “card.” The prosecutor’s
9 comment that this was the defense attorney’s ploy to gain sympathy was not
10 improper, let alone an argument that infected the trial with unfairness. That
11 Petitioner might have panicked if he lost his EBT card—also known as food
12 stamps—did present him in a more favorable and sympathetic light to the jury, and
13 might have lent credence to the defense position that he was, in an act of
14 desperation, using the $100 bill to “negotiate” for help finding his EBT card.
15 Notably, though, the prosecutor was not incorrect in stating that there was no
16 evidence that Petitioner even had an EBT card, let alone that that was the card he
17 lost. Prosecutors are generally given “wide latitude” in making closing arguments.
18 See United States v. Wilkes, 662 F.3d 524, 538 (9th Cir. 2011). Moreover, they
19 have considerable leeway to strike “hard blows” based on the evidence and all
20 reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the evidence. See United States v.
21 Henderson, 241 F.3d 638, 652 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing Berger v. United States, 295
22 U.S. 78, 88 (1935)). Finally, the jury was instructed that statements made by the
23 attorneys during trial are not evidence. ECF No. 28-1, 1 CT at 85. Jurors are
24 presumed to have followed the instructions given to them. Weeks v. Angelone,
25 528 U.S. 225, 234 (2000), and there is no evidence they failed to do that here. The
26 prosecutor did not commit misconduct (or error).
27 / / /
28 / / /
27
Case 2:20-cv-05665-SHK Document 37 Filed 04/08/22 Page 28 of 40 Page ID #:1640
1 2) Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
2 The Sixth Amendment right to counsel guarantees not only assistance, but
3 effective assistance, of counsel. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668
4 (1984). In order to prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel,
5 Petitioner must establish two things: (1) counsel’s performance fell below an
6 “objective standard of reasonableness” under prevailing professional norms; and
7 (2) the deficient performance prejudiced the defense, i.e., “there is a reasonable
8 probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the
9 proceeding would have been different.” Id. at 687-88, 694. A claim of ineffective
10 assistance must be rejected upon finding either that counsel’s performance was
11 reasonable or that the alleged error was not prejudicial. Id. at 697; see also Rios v.
12 Rocha, 299 F.3d 796, 805 (9th Cir. 2002) (“Failure to satisfy either prong of the
13 Strickland test obviates the need to consider the other.”).
14 “The inquiry under Strickland is highly deferential and ‘every effort [must]
15 be made to eliminate the distorting effects of hindsight, to reconstruct the
16 circumstances of counsel’s challenged conduct, and to evaluate the conduct from
17 counsel’s perspective at the time.’” Greenway v. Schriro, 653 F.3d 790, 802 (9th
18 Cir. 2011) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689).
19 Precisely because the Court has found no prosecutorial misconduct based on
20 impugning defense counsel, defense counsel could not have been ineffective in
21 failing to object on this basis. James v. Borg, 24 F.3d 20, 27 (9th Cir. 1994)
22 (failure to make a futile motion does not constitute ineffective assistance of
23 counsel).
24 c. Ground 3(c): improperly appealing to the jurors’ passions
25 and sympathy
26 In Ground 3(c), Petitioner argues that the prosecutor improperly appealed to
27 the jurors’ passions and sympathy by urging them to convict Petitioner to protect
28 themselves, their family members, and public safety. ECF No. 18, SAP at 8. As
28
Case 2:20-cv-05665-SHK Document 37 Filed 04/08/22 Page 29 of 40 Page ID #:1641
1 part of Ground Four, Petitioner argues that defense counsel was ineffective in
2 failing to object to the prosecutor’s appeals to irrelevant considerations, and the
3 passions and prejudices of the jurors. Id. at 6, 9.
4 (i) The Record Below
5 During closing argument, the prosecutor stated the following:
6 If you’re paying attention to the news at all, what just happened
at Walgreens? This is what these statutes are for, because the moment
7
people become engaged in conflict about stupid things involving
8 property, pride, ego, someone wanting to be a hero jumps in and
someone’s potential for harm escalates significantly. And what
9
[Petitioner] did on September 5, 2018 . . . did just that; he put everyone
10 at risk there by his actions. And that is why it matters.
Maybe you’re thinking here, you’re going, ‘man we spent three
11
days talking about something where no one got shot or stabbed; what’s
12 the big deal?’ It matters because people should not have to be in danger
for something like a hundred bucks, whether it’s the defendant’s life, a
13
clerk’s life, or the patrons at that store. It shouldn’t be that way. You
14 should be safe in your environment where you go to work or where you
go shop. That’s why we have these statutes.
15
[π]
16 [T]hese are the places you go shop, these are the places maybe family
members work of your own, or you work, and how people act matters,
17
because if it turns into escalated conduct, if it turns into something
18 where somebody might get physical . . . .”
[π]
19
Other than that, take it fairly, read it impartially, decide for
20 yourself if the people in that store matter enough to enforce the statute.
And I promise you, if you’re taking the law as it’s written and as it’s
21
supposed to be applied, this is a robbery, and it’s that simple.
22
ECF No. 28-6, 3 RT at 654-655, 675, 677.
23
(ii) California Court of Appeal opinion
24
On direct appeal, Petitioner argued that the prosecutor committed
25
misconduct by improperly appealing to the jury’s sympathy or passion in his
26
closing argument and rebuttal when he argued the jury should protect the
27
community by enforcing the state’s robbery statute. ECF No. 28-7, AOB at 36-38.
28
Appellate counsel conceded that defense counsel did not object to these incidents
29
Case 2:20-cv-05665-SHK Document 37 Filed 04/08/22 Page 30 of 40 Page ID #:1642
1 of misconduct and argued that this failure constituted ineffective assistance of
2 counsel. Id. at 37 n.11.
3 The California Court of Appeal rejected Petitioner’s claim on direct review
4 by finding that, “[t]his was, no doubt, an appeal to irrelevant considerations. It is
5 not proper to ask the jury to base its decision on whether the ‘people in the store
6 matter enough to enforce the statute.’ This borders on inciting the jury against the
7 defendant by asking it to choose who is more important.” ECF No. 8-1, Cal. CoA
8 Op. at 14. However, the court of appeal declined to exercise its discretion to
9 excuse Petitioner’s failure to object, id., and rejected Petitioner’s contention that
10 counsel was ineffective in failing to object, finding that it had “no reason to
11 conclude counsel’s failure to object[] was anything other than a strategic decision.”
12 Id. at 15.
13 The court of appeal reasoned that counsel may have decided against
14 objecting, believing that an objection could have drawn more attention to the
15 prosecutor’s remarks, or that an objection that was overruled might have
16 emboldened the prosecutor to take the remarks even further. Id. It also found that
17 it was not reasonably probable that Petitioner would have obtained a more
18 favorable verdict but for counsel’s failure to object. Id. Citing the evidence
19 against Petitioner, it found that “[t]his case was not so closely balanced that
20 counsel’s failure to object to the prosecutor’s appeal to the jury to protect the
21 public materially affected the verdict.” Id. at 15-16.
22 (iii) Analysis
23 Respondent contends that this claim, like Ground 3(b), is procedurally
24 defaulted based on defense counsel’s failure to object at trial. ECF No. 27, Answer
25 Mem. at 24. Respondent argues that Petitioner has failed to make any of the
26 necessary showings to overcome the default, and that, in any event, he suffered no
27 prejudice, as the court of appeal found. Id. at 24-25.
28 / / /
30
Case 2:20-cv-05665-SHK Document 37 Filed 04/08/22 Page 31 of 40 Page ID #:1643
1 The standards for assessing procedural default are set forth previously and
2 the Court finds that this claim is procedurally defaulted as Petitioner made no
3 objection the comments at trial. However, Petitioner has alleged ineffective
4 assistance of counsel to excuse the procedural default, which the Court will
5 address.
6 The court of appeal found the prosecutor’s comments to be inappropriate.
7 There is no basis for finding, however, that but for the prosecutor’s improper
8 comments, there is a reasonable probability that the result of the trial would have
9 been different. See Rios, 299 F.3d at 805 (9th Cir. 2002) (“Failure to satisfy either
10 prong of the Strickland test obviates the need to consider the other.”). As set forth
11 in this Court’s analysis of Ground 3(a), the evidence against Petitioner was strong
12 and straightforward and the facts were simple and the evidence compelling.
13 Petitioner has not shown cause and prejudice to overcome the procedural default of
14 this claim.
15 D. Habeas Relief Is Not Warranted With Respect To Petitioner’s
16 Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel Claims (Ground Four).
17 In Ground Four, Petitioner contends that his trial counsel was ineffective for
18 failing to: (a) move for dismissal based on constitutional violations “displayed”
19 during trial; (b) request an instruction on the subjective and objective components
20 of robbery; (c) preserve an instructional error claim; (d) object to prosecutorial
21 errors; (e) request a continuance to prepare for trial; (f) properly argue a writ of
22 mandamus/motion to recuse; (g) request a hearing regarding Petitioner’s ability to
23 pay fines and fees; and (h) request a curative admonition of Emily Sanchez after
24 the trial court had a lengthy conversation in front of her. ECF No. 18, SAP at 6, 9.
25 1. Analysis
26 The standard for the effective assistance of counsel is set forth above in the
27 Court’s analysis of Petitioner’s prosecutorial misconduct claim 3(b).
28 / / /
31
Case 2:20-cv-05665-SHK Document 37 Filed 04/08/22 Page 32 of 40 Page ID #:1644
1 Preliminarily, the Court concurs with Respondent that Petitioner has
2 proffered only self-serving, conclusory allegations regarding counsel’s allegedly
3 ineffective assistance and has failed to provide any affidavit from his attorney
4 explaining his decisions at trial. ECF No. 27, Answer Mem. at 27-28; Gentry v.
5 Sinclair, 705 F.3d 884, 900 (9th Cir. 2013) (where habeas petitioner presented
6 affidavit of trial counsel that failed to address particular IAC claim, it was not
7 unreasonable of state supreme court to have concluded counsel’s performance was
8 not deficient where there was no evidence to indicate why counsel’s conduct was
9 unreasonable under the circumstances); Rice v. Cooper, 148 F.3d 747, 750 (9th
10 Cir. 1998) (“Rice has not sought an affidavit from the lawyer to explain the
11 lawyer’s strategy”). On this basis, the Court finds that the claims are conclusory
12 and do not warrant habeas relief. See Jones v. Gomez, 66 F.3d 199, 204-05 (9th
13 Cir. 1995). To the extent the Court is able to discern certain of Petitioner’s claims
14 and the allegations in support of the claims, the Court finds that the state courts’
15 rejection of these claims was neither contrary to nor involved an unreasonable
16 application of clearly established Supreme Court law, as further explained.
17 a. Ground 4(a): move for dismissal based on constitutional
18 violations displayed during trial
19 In Ground 4(a), Petitioner contends that counsel was ineffective in failing to
20 move for a dismissal based on constitutional issues that arose during trial. As
21 Petitioner has wholly failed to identify what constitutional violations allegedly
22 occurred at trial, or how they supported a motion to dismiss, this claim is rejected
23 as conclusory. Jones, 66 F.3d at 205 (“[C]onclusory suggestions that [ ] trial . . .
24 counsel provided ineffective assistance fall far short of stating a valid claim of
25 constitutional violation).
26 / / /
27 / / /
28 / / /
32
Case 2:20-cv-05665-SHK Document 37 Filed 04/08/22 Page 33 of 40 Page ID #:1645
1 b. Ground 4(b): request an instruction on the subjective and
2 objective components of robbery
3 In Ground 4(b), Petitioner contends that counsel was ineffective in failing to
4 request an instruction regarding the subjective and objective components of
5 robbery. ECF No. 18, SAP at 6.
6 On direct appeal, Petitioner raised a claim alleging that the trial court
7 prejudicially erred by failing to instruct the jury sua sponte on both the subjective
8 and objective components of the “fear” element of robbery. The court of appeal
9 denied this claim, reasoning that, “. . . no such instruction was necessary.
10 California statute or case law does not require a victim’s fear to be objectively
11 reasonable; it only requires that a victim of robbery have actual fear, i.e., subjective
12 in nature.” ECF No. 8-1, Cal. CoA Op. at 17.
13 In light of this finding regarding the state law definition of robbery, by
14 which this Court is bound, Bradshaw v. Richey, 546 U.S. 74, 76 (2006), the Court
15 finds that any request made by counsel to instruct the jury on the subjective and
16 objective components of robbery would have been denied. The failure to make a
17 futile objection does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. James, 24
18 F.3d at 27.
19 c. Ground 4(c): preserve an instructional error claim
20 In Ground 4(c), Petitioner contends that counsel failed to preserve an
21 instructional error claim. ECF No. 18, SAP at 6. Petitioner has failed to identify
22 the instructional error claim that counsel allegedly failed to preserve. On this
23 basis, the Court finds that the claim is conclusory and should be denied. Jones, 66
24 F.3d at 205. To the extent that Petitioner is alleging that counsel waived the
25 instructional error claim that is the subject of Ground 4(b), the Court’s rejection of
26 the claim in Ground 4(b) would also require rejection of the claim alleging
27 ineffective assistance of counsel in failing to preserve that instructional error claim
28 as Petitioner can show neither deficient performance nor prejudice.
33
Case 2:20-cv-05665-SHK Document 37 Filed 04/08/22 Page 34 of 40 Page ID #:1646
1 d. Ground 4(d): object to prosecutorial errors
2 In Ground 4(d), Petitioner claims that counsel was ineffective in failing to
3 object to the alleged prosecutorial misconduct set forth in Grounds 3(b) and 3(c).
4 ECF No. 18, SAP at 6, 9. The Court has already addressed and rejected these
5 ineffective assistance of counsel claims in its analysis of Grounds 3(b) and (c).
6 e. e. Ground 4(e): request a continuance to prepare for trial
7 In Ground 4(e), Petitioner contends that counsel was ineffective in failing to
8 request a continuance to prepare for trial. ECF No. 18, SAP at 9. As previously
9 set forth in the Court’s analysis of Ground 2(a), there was no evidence that counsel
10 was not prepared for trial, and he in fact announced “ready.” In the absence of
11 evidence that counsel proceeded to trial when he was unprepared to do so and in
12 light of the record showing that counsel announced that he was prepared for trial,
13 the Court cannot find that counsel’s failure to request a continuance to prepare for
14 trial was deficient. Further, Petitioner could not have been prejudiced by counsel’s
15 failure to request a continuance he did not need. This claim is denied.
16 f. Ground 4(f): properly argue a writ of mandamus/motion
17 to recuse
18 In Ground 4(f), Petitioner contends that counsel was ineffective in failing to
19 properly argue “the writ of mandamus/motion to recuse,” by arguing only portions
20 of the writ/motion and misconstruing the writ/motion as a motion for retrial. ECF
21 No. 18, SAP at 9.
22 (i) The record below
23 Prior to sentencing, Petitioner filed a pro se writ of mandamus/motion to
24 recuse. ECF No. 28-6, 3 RT at 901-902. In court, Petitioner gave defense counsel
25 a supplemental brief Petitioner wanted filed. Id. When the trial court indicated it
26 had not “do[ne] anything with [the motion that Petitioner had filed]” because
27 Petitioner was not the attorney of record, defense counsel stated that “he” (counsel)
28 was filing the motion then, and that he wanted to “adequately defend” Petitioner,
34
Case 2:20-cv-05665-SHK Document 37 Filed 04/08/22 Page 35 of 40 Page ID #:1647
1 so he would “accept responsibility for it.” Id. at 902-903. When the trial court
2 heard the motion in court, defense argued that a new trial should be granted based
3 on the fact that the state failed to provide discovery to the defense until after the
4 trial had started, which counsel was unable to review until after the state had rested
5 its case. Id. at 906-907. Counsel further argued that the 911 call was not
6 adequately transcribed. Id.
7 The trial court found that the motion was actually a writ of mandamus/
8 motion to recuse and not a motion for a new trial, and that it raised three issues: (1)
9 the judge was biased and should be recused; (2) ineffective assistance of counsel;
10 and (3) prosecutorial misconduct. ECF No. 28-6, 3 RT at 908-910. The trial court
11 denied the motion. Id.
12 (ii) Analysis
13 The trial court construed the motion that Petitioner filed as a writ of
14 mandamus/motion to recuse and set forth in its oral ruling what it found to be the
15 claims therein. The trial court indicated that it had read the motion and it expressly
16 found that “there is no support” for the claims. ECF No. 28-6, 3 RT at 910.
17 Whatever counsel would have argued at the hearing, then, would have made no
18 difference. Petitioner cannot show that he was prejudiced by counsel’s failure to
19 adequately argue the motion, even if the Court were to find that that is what
20 happened. Rios, 299 F.3d at 805 (9th Cir. 2002) (“Failure to satisfy either prong of
21 the Strickland test obviates the need to consider the other.”). Habeas relief is
22 denied on this claim.
23 g. Ground 4(g): request an ability to pay hearing regarding
24 the imposition of fines and fees
25 In Ground 4(g), Petitioner contends that counsel was ineffective in failing to
26 request an ability to pay hearing regarding the imposition of fines and fees, which
27 resulted in the forfeiture of the issue on appeal. ECF No. 18, SAP at 9. The Court
28 concurs with Respondent that counsel could have determined that an argument for
35
Case 2:20-cv-05665-SHK Document 37 Filed 04/08/22 Page 36 of 40 Page ID #:1648
1 an ability to pay hearing would have been futile. ECF No. 27, Answer Mem. at 35.
2 At the time of sentencing, $640 in fees were assessed against Petitioner and he was
3 38 years old. ECF No. 28-1, 1 CT at 128-133. There is no evidence he was not
4 able-bodied. As such, Petitioner would have had the ability to pay this fine with
5 prison wages, over time, and the trial court would have so found. In any event, the
6 Court need not determine counsel’s actual reason for making a particular trial
7 decision so long as that decision falls within the range of reasonable representation.
8 See Morris v. California, 966 F.2d 448, 456-57 (9th Cir. 1992).
9 Here, the Court finds that trial counsel’s decision to not request an ability to
10 pay hearing was reasonable and habeas relief is denied on this claim.
11 h. Ground 4(h): request a curative instruction after the trial
12 court had a lengthy conversation in front of victim
13 Sanchez
14 In Ground 4(h), Petitioner contends that counsel was ineffective in failing to
15 request a curative admonition of witness Emily Sanchez after trial counsel and the
16 court engaged in a lengthy legal conversation regarding Cal. Penal Code § 211 and
17 other legal factors. ECF No. 18, SAP at 9.
18 The Court has already set forth the facts underlying this claim in its analysis
19 of Ground 2(b). As the Court already found, there is no evidence that Sanchez’s
20 presence for part of the discussion—assuming Sanchez overhead anything—had
21 any effect on the trial. Further, counsel was aware that Sanchez was present for at
22 least part of the conversation because counsel was the one who asked to continue it
23 at another time because Sanchez was there. And yet, counsel deliberately did not
24 seek an admonition of the witness. Again, this Court need not speculate as to the
25 actual reason why, Morris, 966 F.2d at 456-457, because “[c]ounsel is strongly
26 presumed to have rendered adequate assistance.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 690.
27 Counsel’s decision to not seek an admonition of the witness was reasonable,
28 particularly because counsel was in the best possible position to have assessed
36
Case 2:20-cv-05665-SHK Document 37 Filed 04/08/22 Page 37 of 40 Page ID #:1649
1 whether Sanchez overheard any of the conversation and whether that might have
2 negatively impacted the trial in any way. Habeas relief is denied on this claim.
3 E. Habeas Relief Is Not Warranted With Respect To Petitioner’s
4 Claim Relating To The Denial Of His Marsden Motion (Ground
5 Five).
6 In Ground Five, Petitioner claims that the trial court erroneously denied his
7 Marsden motion. ECF No. 18, SAP at 6, 10.6
8 1. The Record Below
9 Prior to jury selection, Petitioner made a motion pursuant to People v.
10 Marsden to have counsel substituted. ECF No. 28-5, 2 RT at A-2-A-3; Schell v.
11 Witek, 218 F.3d 1017, 1021 (9th Cir. 2000) (“[T]he essence of [a Marsden] motion
12 is that appointed counsel’s representation has in some significant measure fallen
13 below the level required by the Sixth Amendment.”). During the hearing,
14 Petitioner argued that his counsel had “failed to take notice of certain issues in
15 regard to [his] case,” including failing to ask certain questions Petitioner wanted
16 asked of a preliminary hearing witness. ECF No. 28-3, Sealed Proceedings –
17 Marsden Motion (“Marsden Transcript) at A-4. Petitioner additionally argued that
18 they have a “complete conflict of interest” but did not explain the conflict. Id. at
19 A-5. The trial court denied the Marsden motion. Id. at A-6.
20 2. Applicable Federal Law and Analysis
21 To the extent that Petitioner is claiming that his rights under Marsden (i.e.,
22 California law) were violated, this claim is not cognizable on federal habeas
23 review. McGuire, 502 U.S. at 68 (“In conducting habeas review, a federal court is
24
25
26
6 Although Petitioner references the “waiver of counsel ‘Faretta rights’” in the SAP, he makes no
27 argument that he was denied his constitutional right to represent himself. ECF No. 18, SAP at
10. Rather, his facts are directed to the trial court’s failure to allow him to adequately argue his
28 Marsden motion, and the fact that he was then forced to go to trial with an attorney who was not
prepared. This latter aspect of the claim has already been addressed by the Court in Ground 2(a).
37
Case 2:20-cv-05665-SHK Document 37 Filed 04/08/22 Page 38 of 40 Page ID #:1650
1 limited to deciding whether a conviction violated the Constitution, laws or treaties
2 of the United States.”).
3 Under federal law, the Sixth Amendment guarantees all criminal defendants
4 the right to the assistance of counsel. Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 339
5 (1963). It does not, however, guarantee a “meaningful relationship” between a
6 client and his attorney. Morris v. Slappy, 461 U.S. 1, 14 (1983). A defendant’s
7 constitutional rights are violated if an irreconcilable conflict exists that prevents the
8 effective assistance of counsel. See Stenson v. Lambert, 504 F.3d 873, 886 (9th
9 Cir. 2007).
10 There is no evidence that there was an irreconcilable conflict between
11 Petitioner and his attorney. Although he claimed during the hearing on the
12 Marsden motion that he and his attorney had a “complete conflict of interest,”
13 when the trial court asked what that conflict was based on, Petitioner’s reply was
14 not responsive to the question. ECF No. 28-3, Marsden Transcript at A-5. “In
15 order to demonstrate an actual conflict of interest, the defendant must show that his
16 attorney was actively representing conflicting interests and that the conflict
17 adversely affected the attorney’s performance.” Stenson, 504 F.3d at 886. The
18 record shows only that Petitioner believed that his counsel was not taking notice of
19 certain issues and not asking certain questions that Petitioner wanted him to ask at
20 the preliminary hearing. These types of concerns are “better characterized as
21 [concerns] over trial strategy” and there is “no clearly established Supreme Court
22 precedent holding that this kind of disagreement amounts to an actual conflict of
23 interest.” Id. Habeas relief is denied on this claim.
24 F. Habeas Relief Is Not Warranted With Respect To Petitioner’s
25 Due Process Claim Relating To The State Appellate Court’s
26 Findings On Appeal.
27 In Ground Six, Petitioner contends that he suffered due process violations
28 arising from certain findings and conclusions made by the California Court of
38
Case 2:20-cv-05665-SHK Document 37 Filed 04/08/22 Page 39 of 40 Page ID #:1651
1 Appeal on direct appeal relating to his prosecutorial misconduct claims and a
2 cumulative error claim. ECF No. 18-1, Attachment to SAP (“SAP Att.”) at 1.
3 As an initial matter, the Court finds that a state court’s fact-finding and
4 analysis do not, in and of themselves, give rise to a due process violation. Rather,
5 where the finding and conclusions are contrary to or involve an unreasonable
6 application of clearly established Supreme Court law, the habeas petitioner is
7 entitled to habeas relief on the constitutional violation—not because the state
8 court’s flawed analysis itself constitutes the constitutional violation. For the
9 reasons discussed in greater detail below, habeas relief is denied on this claim.
10 1. Prosecutorial Misconduct
11 Petitioner takes issue with several of the findings made by the California
12 Court of Appeal relating to his prosecutorial misconduct claims. ECF No. 18-1,
13 SAP Att. at 1. The Court has already addressed the California Court of Appeal’s
14 rejection of Petitioner’s prosecutorial misconduct claims, including his related
15 ineffective assistance of counsel claims, previously, and found that they failed on
16 the merits.
17 2. Cumulative Error
18 “Cumulative error applies where, ‘although no single trial error examined in
19 isolation is sufficiently prejudicial to warrant reversal, the cumulative effect of
20 multiple errors may still prejudice a defendant.’” Mancuso v. Olivarez, 292 F.3d
21 939, 957 (9th Cir. 2002) (as amended) (quoting United States v. Frederick, 78 F.3d
22 1370, 1381 (9th Cir. 1996)); see also Parle v. Runnels, 505 F.3d 922, 928 (9th Cir.
23 2007) (“[T]he Supreme Court has clearly established that the combined effect of
24 multiple trial errors may give rise to a due process violation if it renders a trial
25 fundamentally unfair, even where each error considered individually would not
26 require reversal.”).
27 In the California Court of Appeal and the California Supreme Court,
28 Petitioner argued that the prosecutorial misconduct claims and the instructional
39
Case 2:20-cv-05665-SHK Document 37 Filed 04/08/22 Page 40 of 40 Page ID #:1652
1 error claim relating to the trial court’s failure to instruct with the subjective and
2 objective components of fear in a robbery combined to create a cumulative error.
3 ECF No. 28-7, AOB at 64-65; ECF No. 8-2, Petition for Review at 37-39. The
4 state courts’ rejection of this claim was neither contrary to nor involved an
5 unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court law as none of the
6 alleged claims evaluated singularly, or in combination, constitute constitutional
7 error. Thus, Petitioner’s cumulative error claim fails as well. See Mancuso, 292
8 F.3d at 957 (“Because there is no single constitutional error in this case, there is
9 nothing to accumulate to a level of a constitutional violation”).
10 VI. ORDER
11 IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that Judgment be entered denying the
12 Petition and dismissing this action with prejudice.
13
14 DATED: April 8, 2022
15
HON. SHASHI H. KEWALRAMANI
16 United States Magistrate Judge
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
40