Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02943/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02943-2/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD JAMES WELK,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 12cv2943-LAB (WVG)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR

vs. WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

MATTHEW CATE,

Respondent.

Petitioner Richard Welk, a prisoner in state custody, filed his petition in this Court

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, this

matter was referred to Magistrate Judge William Gallo. Judge Gallo issued his report and

recommendation (the "R&R"), to which Welk has filed objections.

A district court has jurisdiction to review a Magistrate Judge's report and

recommendation on dispositive matters. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). "The district judge must

determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly

objected to." Id. "A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the

findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The

Court reviews de novo those portions of the R&R to which specific written objection is made.

United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). "The statute

makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate judge's findings and

recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise." Id.

- 1 - 12cv2943

Case 3:12-cv-02943-LAB-WVG Document 27 Filed 01/22/14 Page 1 of 4
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

Procedural History

Welk was convicted in California state court of first degree murder after he stabbed

a homless man, William Fortner, to death. The murder took place on the Mission Beach

boardwalk in San Diego, and numerous witnesses testified at trial. In his petition to the

California Supreme Court, Welk argued that the evidence was insufficient to show the killing

was premeditated and deliberate. He also raised two other claims that he has since

abandoned.

Judge Gallo issued his report and recommendation (the “R&R,” docket no. 11),

recommending that the petition be denied. The R&R sets forth the correct legal standards

for the grant or denial of § 2254 habeas petitions, as well as for the review of “sufficiency of

the evidence” claims on habeas review, which the Court also relies on but does not repeat

in detail here. It is enough to note that the standard for sufficiency of the evidence claims is

set forth in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979), and on habeas review the Court

aplies the Jackson standards “with an additional layer of deference.” Juan H. v. Allen, 408

F.3d 1262, 1275 (9 Cir. 2005). th

Because it is relevant to Welk’s objections, the Court also notes that unexhausted

claims cannot serve as the basis for habeas relief. See O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838,

842 (1999). In order to exhaust his claims, Welk was required to give state courts aa full and

fair opportunity to correct alleged constitutional errors. Id. at 845. Here, this means Welk

was required to present his arguments to the California Supreme Court. See id. at 844–45. 

He may not “fundamentally alter” the claim as presented to that court; if he does, it is

unexhausted. See Beaty v. Stewart, 303 F.3d 975, 989–990 (9 Cir. 2002). th

Objections

The R&R focuses on the claim as presented to the California Supreme Court, namely,

whether the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support a conviction for first degree

murder, as opposed to some lesser charge. The R&R accurately describes the evidence,

quoting from the state court record. Among other things, the R&R points out that there was

ample evidence suggesting that Welk wanted to kill Fortner, and that he provoked a

- 2 - 12cv2943

Case 3:12-cv-02943-LAB-WVG Document 27 Filed 01/22/14 Page 2 of 4
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

confrontation as an excuse for doing so. Having provoked the confrontation and rendered

Fortner helpless, Welk then fatally stabbed him in the neck. The R&R relied on the state

courts’ finding of facts, correctly noting that they are presumed correct and entitled to

deference.

Welk’s objections amount to little more than re-arguing his case as if the Court were

a jury. The evidence he cites is brief and selectively quoted. But even so, it essentially

supports the prosecution’s case. Even assuming the evidence were as sparse and equivocal

as Welk claims, it would be sufficient to meet the doubly deferential standard. 

But in fact the evidence is not as Welk characterizes it. Among other things, there was

abundant evidence that Welk wanted to kill Fortner, and deliberately provoked an altercation

to have an excuse for doing so. Before the killing, Welk had advised his girlfriend, if she were

ever attacked, to stab her attacker in the neck (in the same way he later stabbed Fortner).

On the day Welk was armed with a knife which he never revealed to Fortner. Although the

two men were strangers, Welk approached Fortner while the latter was sitting on a seawall,

wearing headphones, and began to taunt him. The interaction lasted several minutes, with

Fortner at various times attempting to disengage and back away, or telling Welk to leave him

alone or go away. Although Fortner also attempted to hit Welk, he appeared to be so

uncoordinated and unsteady (possibly as a result of intoxication) that he was no real threat

and never landed a blow. Welk, by contrast, easily dodged Fortner’s swings, and continued

taunting and slapping Fortner. Welk then knocked Fortner down, and as Fortner was

attempting to get up, he held Fortner’s head and fatally stabbed him in the neck. Welk

stabbed Fortner so forcefully that he severed Fortner’s spinal cord and veretbral artery and

cut into his cervical vertebra. Welk’s statements both before and after the killing provide

evidence of his state of mind. Shortly before the stabbing, a witness testified that Welk told

Fortner “I’m going to get you in self-defense” and afterwards as he walked away “I told ya

I’d get you. Self-defense. Self-defense. Everybody saw that. Self-defense.” A witness

testified that Welk later, while watching a television news report about the stabbing, bragged

about having killed Fortner. (See 4 RT 233, 235, 237–39, 243, 252–54, 266, 291, 294–96,

- 3 - 12cv2943

Case 3:12-cv-02943-LAB-WVG Document 27 Filed 01/22/14 Page 3 of 4
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

298–303, 305–12, 314–16, 323–27, 332–33; 5 RT 360–63, 367–70, 405–07, 409–10,

412–14, 426, 429–30, 478; 6 RT 609–10, 702–04, 717; 7 RT 750–51.) The evidence was

easily sufficient to support a conviction.

In parts, Welk argues that the evidence was not sufficient to support the jury’s

rejection of his self-defense theory. But this argument was never presented to the California

Supreme Court, and is unexhausted. The only argument that Court had a fair opportunity to

consider was his claim that the evidence didn’t support premeditation.

Welk argues he is entitled to an evidentiary hearing. But there is no evidence he could

present at this point, except that which is in the record already. This Court’s review is limited

to the record before the state courts, see Cullen v . Pinholster, 131 S.Ct. 1388, 1399 (2011),

and that record easily shows the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict. See Schriro

v. Landrigan, 550 U.S. 465, 474 (2007) (“[I]f the record refutes the applicant's factual

allegations or otherwise precludes habeas relief, a district court is not required to hold an

evidentiary hearing.”)

Conclusion and Order

For these reasons, Welk’s objections to the R&R are OVERRULED. The Court

ADOPTS the R&R, and the petition is DENIED..

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 21, 2014

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

- 4 - 12cv2943

Case 3:12-cv-02943-LAB-WVG Document 27 Filed 01/22/14 Page 4 of 4