Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01095/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01095-1/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 - 10cv1095

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES RICHARD WOOD,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 10cv1095-MMA (WVG)

vs. ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED

STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE;

[Doc. No. 11]

OVERRULING OBJECTIONS TO

REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION;

[Doc. No. 12]

DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT

OF HABEAS CORPUS;

[Doc. No. 1]

DENYING CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY

WILLIAM B. KOLENDER, San Diego

County Sheriff,

Defendant.

Petitioner James Richard Wood filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254 [Doc. No. 1], challenging his conviction for attempting to dissuade a witness in

violation of California Penal Code § 136.1(b)(1). Respondent filed an answer to the petition [Doc.

No. 8], and Petitioner filed a traverse [Doc. No. 10]. The matter is currently before the Court for

review of the Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 11] prepared by the assigned magistrate judge

Case 3:10-cv-01095-MMA-WVG Document 13 Filed 09/23/11 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

1

 “‘Victim’ means any natural person with respect to whom there is reason to believe that any

crime as defined under the laws of this state or any other state or of the United States is being or has

been perpetrated or attempted to be perpetrated.” Cal. Pen. Code § 136(3). 

- 2 - 10cv1095

recommending that the petition be denied. 

Petitioner filed objections [Doc. No. 12] to the Report and Recommendation. Pursuant to

Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court must “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].” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617

(9th Cir. 1989). Due to the broad scope of Petitioner’s objections, the Court has conducted a de

novo review of the entire record. The Court finds the objections to be without merit and comments

only briefly upon them below. 

Under California law, it is a misdemeanor to “attempt[] to prevent or dissuade another person

who has been the victim of a crime or who is witness to a crime from . . . [m]aking any report of that

victimization to any peace officer or state or local law enforcement officer . . .” Cal. Pen. Code §

136.1(b)(1). In short, Petitioner reasons that his conviction under this statute cannot stand because 

his communications with the purported victim were premised on his sincere belief that he had

committed no crime. Petitioner contends that cumulative photographic evidence, a “nanny cam”

video, and testimony from his prior clients – all excluded by the trial court – would have

corroborated his assertion and swayed the jury. However, Petitioner’s own personal belief that he

lawfully communicated with the purported victim is irrelevant. He may have not had any criminal

intent when he contacted her, but he admits that he had the specific intent to do so. The specific

intent required by Section 136.1 is the intent to dissuade or prevent a victim or witness from making

any report to law enforcement.1

 People v. Ford (1983) 145 Cal. App. 3d 985, 989-990; People v.

Lyons (1991) 235 Cal. App. 3d 1456, 1460-1461; People v. Brenner (1992) 5 Cal. App. 4th 335,

339. The email, which Petitioner admits he wrote and admits he sent to the purported victim, was

sufficient evidence to support his conviction. Thus, the state appellate court did not contravene

federal law; unreasonably apply federal law, or make an unreasonable determination of the facts

when it denied Petitioner’s due process and ineffective assistance of counsel claims; rejected

Case 3:10-cv-01095-MMA-WVG Document 13 Filed 09/23/11 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 - 10cv1095

Petitioner’s attack on the constitutionality of Section 136.1(b)(1); and found that sufficient evidence

supported Petitioner’s conviction. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). 

Accordingly, the Court concludes that the magistrate judge issued an accurate report and

well-reasoned recommendation that the instant petition be denied. The Court ADOPTS the Report

and Recommendation in its entirety and DENIES the petition for writ of habeas corpus.

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 a state court detention unless the petitioner first obtains a certificate of

appealability from a district judge or circuit judge under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. Fed. R. App. Proc.

22(b). Under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), 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 herein, and in detail 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 action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 23, 2011

Hon. Michael M. Anello

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-01095-MMA-WVG Document 13 Filed 09/23/11 Page 3 of 3