Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02718/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02718-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 1 - 09cv2718

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSE DANIEL LOPEZ,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 09CV2718-MMA (JMA)

vs. ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION;

[Doc. No. 16]

OVERRULING PETITIONER’S

OBJECTIONS;

[Doc. No. 17]

DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS.

[Doc. No. 1]

MATTHEW CATE,

Defendant.

Petitioner Jose Daniel Lopez, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of

habeas corpus [Doc. No. 1] pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his state court conviction and

sentence for, inter alia, attempted murder, robbery, and assault with a deadly weapon. Respondent

filed an answer to the petition [Doc. No. 12], and Petitioner filed a traverse [Doc. No. 14]. The

matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Jan M. Adler for preparation of a Report and

Recommendation under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Civil Local Rule 72.1(d)(4). 

///

///

Case 3:09-cv-02718-MMA-JMA Document 18 Filed 02/07/11 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 - 09cv2718

The magistrate judge issued a well reasoned and thorough Report recommending the petition

be denied in its entirety. Petitioner timely filed objections, challenging the findings and conclusions

of law set forth in the Report and Recommendation. Respondent did not file an objection to the

Report, or a response to Petitioner’s objections. 

DISCUSSION

Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), in reviewing a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation,

the district court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which

objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or

recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” In the instant case, Petitioner objects to the

findings and conclusions contained in the Report. 

With respect to his first ground for relief, Petitioner objects to the magistrate judge’s finding

that sufficient evidence supports his attempted murder conviction. Petitioner argues, as he did in his

traverse, that the evidence at trial was insufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that he

used force in an attempt to kill, rather than an attempt to escape. The court of appeal rejected

Petitioner’s insufficient evidence claim and in so doing specifically noted that “the fact that Lopez

may have initiated the attack . . . to facilitate . . . escape does not preclude the existence of intent to

kill.” See Lodgment No. 6, 9. The magistrate judge correctly concluded that the appellate court’s

determination was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established Supreme

Court precedent, and was based upon a reasonable interpretation of the facts in the record. 

Petitioner also objects to the magistrate judge’s finding that sufficient evidence supports his

gang enhancements. Petitioner argues that the evidence introduced at trial failed to establish that the 

commission of crimes is the primary activity of members of Petitioner’s gang, and the gang expert

never gave that opinion. The court of appeal found no merit to this claim and magistrate judge

correctly concluded that the appellate court’s determination was reasonable and based on the facts in

the record. A detective specializing in gang investigations opined at trial that “a gang’s primary

activity is any one of the crimes listed in our penal code under section 186.22,” “anywhere from

drug sales, murder, robbery, car jacking, weapons” and “auto theft, identity theft, fraudulent cards,”

“that’s what gang members primarily do.” Based on this testimony, as well as the testimony of

Case 3:09-cv-02718-MMA-JMA Document 18 Filed 02/07/11 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 - 09cv2718

several other law enforcement officers specializing in gang enforcement, a rational juror could

conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Petitioner committed the crimes for which he was

convicted to benefit his gang. People v. Sengpadychith, 26 Cal.4th 316, 324 (2001) (holding that a

gang’s primary activity can be established through expert testimony).

Finally, Petitioner objects to the magistrate judge’s finding that the trial court’s denial of

Petitioner’s request for a continuance of the sentencing hearing was not contrary to, or an

unreasonable application of, clearly established Supreme Court precedent. Petitioner argues that he

had the right to a continuance in order to be examined for the presence of mental defects. A review

of the record supports the magistrate judge’s recommendation to deny the petition on this ground. 

Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation and the files and records herein, the Court

OVERRULES Petitioner’s objections and ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation in its

entirety. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s petition and a writ of habeas corpus shall not

issue in this case.

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

“The district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final

order adverse to the applicant.” Rule 11 foll. 28 U.S.C. § 2254. A petitioner may not seek an appeal

of a claim arising out of state court detention unless the petitioner first obtains a certificate of

appealability from a district judge or a circuit judge under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). 

Under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1), a certificate of appealability will issue only if the petitioner makes a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 

For the reasons set forth in the Report and Recommendation, Petitioner has not made a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Accordingly, a certificate of appealability

should not issue in this case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 7, 2011

Hon. Michael M. Anello

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-02718-MMA-JMA Document 18 Filed 02/07/11 Page 3 of 3