Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02345/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02345-1/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

18cv2345-CAB-NLS

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LAVALLE MARCELLE PORTER,

Petitioner,

v.

PATRICK COVELLO, Warden,

Respondent.

Case No.: 18cv2345-CAB-NLS

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION [Doc. No. 12] 

AND DENYING PETITION

Lavalle Marcelle Porter (“Petitioner”), is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a 

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

2254. [Doc. No. 1.] This matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Nita L. 

Stormes pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Magistrate Judge Stormes issued a Report 

and Recommendation (“Report”) recommending the Court deny the petition. [Doc. No. 

12.] Petitioner filed objections to the Report. [Doc. No. 13.] No reply has been filed

Following de novo review of Petitioner’s claims, the Court finds the Report to be 

thorough, complete, and an accurate analysis of the legal issues presented in the petition. 

For the reasons explained below, the Court: (1) adopts the Report in full; (2) rejects 

Petitioner’s objections; (3) denies the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus; and (4) denies 

a certificate of appealability.

Case 3:18-cv-02345-CAB-NLS Document 14 Filed 04/24/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
2

18cv2345-CAB-NLS

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

BACKGROUND

I. Factual Background

The Report contains an accurate recital of the facts as determined by the California 

Court of Appeal, and the Court fully adopts the Report’s statement of facts. As Judge

Stomres correctly noted, the Court presumes state court findings of fact to be correct.

II. State Procedural Background

The Report contains a complete and accurate summary of the state court 

proceedings, and the Court fully adopts the Report’s statement of state procedural 

background.

III. Federal Procedural Background

On October 11, 2018, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

challenging his San Diego County Superior Court conviction. [Doc. No. 1.] On October 

29, 2018, Petitioner filed a supplemental memorandum in support of his Petition. [Doc. 

No. 6.] On December 21, 2018, Respondent filed an Answer to the Petition, and lodged 

portions of the state court record. [Doc. Nos. 9 and 10.] On January 30, 2019, Petitioner 

filed a Traverse. [Doc. No. 11.] 

On March 12, 2019, Magistrate Judge Nita L. Stormes issued a Report 

recommending that the petition be denied. [Doc. No. 12.] On April 3, 2019, Petitioner 

filed an Objection to the Report. [Doc. No. 13.] In his objection, Petitioner argues that the 

magistrate judge erred in finding that the state court did not make an unreasonable 

application of clearly established federal law or an unreasonable determination of the 

facts in light of the evidence. Because Petitioner has objected to the Report in its 

entirety, the Court reviews the Report de novo. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Holder v. 

Holder, 392 F.3d 1009, 1022 (9th Cir. 2004).

DISCUSSION

I. Legal Standard

The Report sets forth the correct standard of review for a petition for writ of habeas 

corpus. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d):

Case 3:18-cv-02345-CAB-NLS Document 14 Filed 04/24/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
3

18cv2345-CAB-NLS

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

(d) An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in 

custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted with 

respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court 

proceedings unless the adjudication of the claim-

(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable 

application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the 

Supreme Court of the United States; or

(2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of 

the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.

28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 403, 412-13 (2000). 

Under § 2254(d)(1), a state court's decision is “contrary to” clearly established 

federal law if the state court (1) “arrives at a conclusion opposite to that reached by this 

Court on a question of law” or (2) “confronts facts that are materially indistinguishable 

from a relevant Supreme Court precedent and arrives at a result opposite to ours.” 

Williams, 529 U.S. at 405. A state court's decision is an “unreasonable application” if the 

application was “objectively unreasonable.” Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 75-76 

(2003).

Under § 2254(d)(2), habeas relief is not available due to a state court's 

“unreasonable determination of the facts” unless the underlying factual determinations 

were objectively unreasonable. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 340 (2003); see 

also Rice v. Collins, 546 U.S. 333, 341-42 (2006) (the fact that “[r]easonable minds 

reviewing the record might disagree” does not render a decision objectively 

unreasonable).

II. Analysis of Petitioner’s Claim

Petitioner raises one claim in his Petition: the trial court abused its discretion and 

violated Petitioner’s Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to due process of law under the 

United States Constitution by excluding, pursuant to California Evidence Code section 

352, the recording of 911 calls that Petitioner made on July 5, 2015 (18 days earlier), 

where he reported that he was being followed and threatened by men at the same trolley 

stop where the assault took place. [Doc. No. 1.]

Case 3:18-cv-02345-CAB-NLS Document 14 Filed 04/24/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
4

18cv2345-CAB-NLS

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

First, to the extent Petitioner claims that the trial court erred when it excluded the 

evidence pursuant to California Evidence Code section 352, state court evidentiary 

rulings cannot serve as a basis for habeas relief. Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67 

(1991). Rather, “a state court’s evidentiary ruling, even if erroneous, is grounds for 

federal habeas relief only if it renders the state proceedings so fundamentally unfair as to 

violate due process. Spivey v. Rocha, 194 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 1999). As noted by 

Magistrate Judge Stormes, various district courts have held that Rule 352 does not violate 

the Constitution on its face and cannot form the basis for habeas relief. [Doc. No. 12 at 

14 (citations omitted).]1 Moreover, Petitioner has not shown that the trial court’s 

decision in this case was contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly 

established federal law. Spivey, 194 F.3d at 977-78. The trial court heard argument and 

testimony regarding whether to admit the 911 calls, and reasonably concluded that there 

was not sufficient evidence to link the 911 calls to the assault, which took place over two 

weeks later under differing circumstances. In addition, there was other evidence 

presented going to Petitioner’s guilt, including Petitioner’s testimony and a video of the 

assault itself. Thus, the decision regarding the 911 calls did not render the state 

proceedings “fundamentally unfair,” and was not contrary to or an unreasonable 

application of federal law. Id. Accordingly, the Court adopts the Report and denies the 

petition as to this claim.

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

A petitioner complaining of detention arising from state court proceedings must 

obtain a certificate of appealability to file an appeal of the final order in a federal habeas 

proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2007). The district court may issue a certificate 

of appealability if the petitioner “has made a substantial showing of the denial of a 

 

1

In his objections, Petitioner cites to Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683 (1986). [Doc. No. 13 at 2.]

However, Crane involved evidence concerning the voluntariness of the defendant’s confession and 

therefore is not on point. To the extent Crane stands for the general proposition that defendants have a 

right to present a meaningful defense, Petitioner did so through his own testimony. [R.T. 235 – 303.]

Case 3:18-cv-02345-CAB-NLS Document 14 Filed 04/24/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
5

18cv2345-CAB-NLS

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

constitutional right.” Id. § 2253(c)(2). To make a “substantial showing,” the petitioner 

must “demonstrat[e] that ‘reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of 

the constitutional claims debatable[.]’ ” Beaty v. Stewart, 303 F.3d 975, 984 (9th 

Cir.2002) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). Petitioner has not 

made a “substantial showing” as to the claim raised by his petition, and thus the Court 

sua sponte denies a certificate of appealability.

CONCLUSION

In sum, Petitioner has not established that the appellate court's decision was 

contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, or 

was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence 

presented in the state courts. The Court hereby: (1) adopts the Report in full; (2) rejects 

Petitioner's objections; (3) denies the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus; and (4) denies a 

certificate of appealability.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 24, 2019

Case 3:18-cv-02345-CAB-NLS Document 14 Filed 04/24/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5