Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-00090/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-00090-1/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSE HERMOSILLO, JR.,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 10cv0090 WQH (MDD)

ORDER

vs.

MATTHEW CATE, Warden,

Respondent.

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is the Report and Recommendation issued by the

Magistrate Judge recommending that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Petitioner

be denied. (ECF No. 22).

BACKGROUND

On January 12, 2010, Petitioner Jose Hermosillo, Jr. filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus asserting nine grounds for relief stemming from his 2009 conviction in San Diego

Superior Court for child molestation. (ECF No. 1). On June 17, 2010, Respondent filed an

Answer. (ECF No. 11). On August 30, 2010, Petitioner filed a Traverse. (ECF No. 16). 

On December 1, 2011, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation

recommending that the Petition be denied. (ECF No. 22). On February 24, 2012, Petitioner

filed objections to the Report and Recommendation that mirror the arguments asserted in his

Petition and Traverse. On February 24, 2012, Petitioner also filed a Motion for Certificate of

Appealability. (ECF Nos. 28, 30). 

- 1 - 10cv0090 WQH (RBB)

Case 3:10-cv-00090-WQH-MDD Document 32 Filed 05/04/12 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

DISCUSSION

I. Review of the Report and Recommendation

The duties of the district court in connection with a Report and Recommendation of a

Magistrate Judge are set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1). When a party objects to a Report and Recommendation, “[a] judge of the [district]

court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the [Report and

Recommendation] to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When no objections

are filed, the district court need not review the Report and Recommendation de novo. See

Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005); U.S. v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d

1114, 1121-22 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). A district court may “accept, reject, or modify, in

whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Fed. R. Civ.

P. 72(b); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). This Court has reviewed the Report and

Recommendation and the record in its entirety. 

 The Magistrate Judge correctly stated that federal courts may only grant a petition for

habeas corpus relief based on grounds reviewed on the merits in state court when the state

court’s decision was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly

established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States, or when the

state court’s decision was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the

evidence presented in the state court proceeding. (ECF No. 22 at 3). Regarding Petitioner’s

grounds for relief based on due process violations (grounds one, two, and three), the Magistrate

Judge correctly concluded that no due process violation resulted from the trial court preventing

defense counsel from arguing misidentification based on hand tattoo evidence, the trial court’s

denial of Petitioner’s motion for a live lineup, or the trial court’s refusal to inform the jury

about the denial of the motion for a live lineup. Id. at 9-12. The Magistrate Judge correctly

found that Petitioner’s fourth ground for relief based on prosecutorial misconduct is

procedurally defaulted due to “Petitioner’s failure to make a contemporaneous objection of

prosecutorial misconduct at trial....” Id. at 13. The Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that

the trial court’s denial of Petitioner’s motion for a new trial did not violate Petitioner’s right

- 2 - 10cv0090 WQH (RBB)

Case 3:10-cv-00090-WQH-MDD Document 32 Filed 05/04/12 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

to present a meaningful defense, as alleged in Petitioner’s sixth grounds for relief. Id. at 14-16. 

The Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that Petitioner’s sentence in state court to multiple

life sentences did not violate due process, double jeopardy, or the Eighth Amendment, as

alleged in Petitioner’s seventh grounds for relief. Id. at 16-19. Regarding Petitioner’s grounds

for relief based on ineffective assistance of counsel (grounds five, eight, and nine), the

Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that defense counsel’s failure to object to license plate

testimony, investigate potential alibi witnesses, and seek admonition, did not constitute

ineffective assistance of counsel. Id. at 5-9. 

The Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that the Petition should be denied. 

II. Certificate of Appealability

A certificate of appealability must be obtained by a petitioner in order to pursue an

appeal from a final order in a Section 2254 habeas corpus proceeding. See 28 U.S.C. §

2253(c)(1)(A); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). Pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules Governing

Section 2254 Cases, “[t]he district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when

it enters a final order adverse to the applicant.” 

A certificate of appealability may issue “only if the applicant has made a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). It must appear that

reasonable jurists could find the district court’s assessment of the petitioner’s constitutional

claims debatable or wrong. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000). The Court

concludes that jurists of reason could not find it debatable whether this Court was correct in

denying the Petition. The Court denies a certificate of appealability. 

CONCLUSION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 22) is

adopted in its entirety. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED. The certificate

of appealability (ECF No. 30) is DENIED. 

DATED: May 4, 2012

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

- 3 - 10cv0090 WQH (RBB)

Case 3:10-cv-00090-WQH-MDD Document 32 Filed 05/04/12 Page 3 of 3