Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_99-cv-01686/USCOURTS-caed-2_99-cv-01686-2/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

United States District Court

Eastern District of California 

Carl Lee Callegari,

Petitioner, No. Civ. S 99-1686 MCE PAN P

vs. Findings and Recommendations

Anthony Lamarque, Warden,

Respondent.

-oOoPetitioner is a prisoner, with counsel, seeking a writ of

habeas corpus. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Respondent has answered

the August 30, 1999, petition.

September 25, 1996, petitioner was convicted of possessing a

controlled substance and, pursuant to California’s three-strikes

law, was sentenced to 25 years to life in prison. See Cal.

Health and Safety Code § 11350(a); Cal. Pen. Code §§ 667(d),

1170.12(b).

Petitioner appealed and the judgment was affirmed June 18, 

Case 2:99-cv-01686-MCE -PAN Document 33 Filed 01/24/06 Page 1 of 5
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

2

1998.

Petitioner filed a petition for review in the California

Supreme Court. That court denied review August 26, 1998.

Petitioner did not seek habeas relief in the state court.

The following facts are from the appellate court’s decision:

Stockton police officers were on patrol at 1 a.m.

when they saw a group of 20 to 30 people standing on

the corner of a street intersection. One of the

officers saw defendant walk away from the group and

drop two baggies from his hand. The officer got out of

his car and yelled at defendant to stop. Defendant ran

and appeared to put something in his mouth. 

The officer caught defendant and put his hand on

defendant’s throat to prevent him from swallowing the

object in his mouth. A rock of cocaine base then fell

out of defendant’s mouth. As defendant was being

handcuffed, he stepped on and crushed the rock that had

fallen out of his mouth. The two baggies dropped by

defendant contained about twenty-eight to thirty rocks

of cocaine base. The portion of the crushed rock that

officers were able to recover weighed .01 grams. One

of the baggies weighed 1.51 grams. The other one

weighed 2.35 grams.

This court cannot grant habeas relief unless the state

court’s adjudication resulted in a decision that was contrary to

or an unreasonable application of federal law as clearly

established by the United States Supreme Court or in a decision

that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in

light of the evidence. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), (2).

When a petitioner challenges a state court’s legal

determinations, the court must determine whether the state

court’s adjudication of the merits resulted in a decision that is

contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established

federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). A decision is contrary to

Case 2:99-cv-01686-MCE -PAN Document 33 Filed 01/24/06 Page 2 of 5
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

3

clearly established federal law if the state court applies

incorrect legal authority, or if it applies correct authority to

a case involving facts materially indistinguishable from those in

a controlling case, but nonetheless reaches a different result. 

Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 413-14 (2000). A decision

involves an unreasonable application of federal law if the state

court identifies the correct governing legal principle but

applies it to the facts of the prisoner’s case in a manner that

is “objectively unreasonable.” Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63

(2003). “Clearly established federal law” is defined as the

holdings of the United States Supreme Court existing when the

state court issued its decision. Williams, 529 U.S. at 412. 

Circuit law is “persuasive authority” for purposes of determining

whether a state court decision is an unreasonable application of

Supreme Court law. Clark v. Murphy, 331 F.3d 1062 (9th Cir.

2003); Duhaime v. Ducharme, 200 F.3d 597, 600-01 (9th Cir. 1999). 

Petitioner claims the reasonable doubt instruction to his

jury, CALJIC No. 2.90 (1994 revision), diluted the state’s burden

of proof. It is undisputed the trial judge gave the challenged

instruction. The appellate court, citing authority that mirrors

federal precedent, People v. Freeman, 8 Cal.4th 450, 504 (Cal.

1994); People v. Light, 44 Cal.App.4th 879, 889 (Cal. App. 1996);

People v. Torres, 43 Cal.App.4th 1073, 1078 (Cal. App. 1996),

determined, “the 1994 revision of CALJIC No. 2.90 is

constitutional.”

The Fourteenth Amendment requires the prosecution to prove a 

Case 2:99-cv-01686-MCE -PAN Document 33 Filed 01/24/06 Page 3 of 5
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

4

criminal defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In re

Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970). The Sixth Amendment requires the

jury to find the evidence satisfies this standard. Sullivan v.

Luisiana, 508 U.S. 275, 278 (1993). The court must instruct the

jury on the prosecution’s burden but the Constitution does not

require any particular language. Victor v. Nebraska, 511 U.S. 3

(1994). An instruction defining the standard as “an abiding

conviction” correctly instructs the jury. Id. at 14-15. The

question is whether there is a reasonable likelihood the jury

understood the instructions to allow conviction based on proof

insufficient to satisfy Winship. Victor, 511 U.S. at 6. 

The challenged instruction reads:

Reasonable doubt is defined as follows: It is not a

mere possible doubt, because everything relating to

human affairs is open to some possible or imaginary

doubt. It is that state of the case which after the

entire comparison and consideration of all the evidence

leaves the minds of the jurors in that condition that

they cannot say they feel an abiding conviction of the

truth of the charge.

CALJIC 2.90 (1994 revision).

This instruction satisfies Victor. Accordingly, the

appellate court’s adjudication of the claim did not result in a

decision that was contrary to or an unreasonable application of

clearly established federal law.

Therefore, I hereby recommend the petition be denied.

Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l), these

findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States

District Judge assigned to this case. Written objections may be 

Case 2:99-cv-01686-MCE -PAN Document 33 Filed 01/24/06 Page 4 of 5
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

5

filed within 20 days of service of these findings and

recommendations. The document should be captioned “Objections to

Magistrate Judge’s Fndings and Recommendations.” The district

judge may accept, reject, or modify these findings and

recommendations in whole or in part.

Dated: January 24, 2006. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:99-cv-01686-MCE -PAN Document 33 Filed 01/24/06 Page 5 of 5