Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_01-cv-20765/USCOURTS-cand-5_01-cv-20765-0/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 Petitioner has actually asked the court to alter or amend its judgment of February 25, 2003,

but because the only judgment this court has rendered in this case was filed on January 1, 2005, the court

assumes this is the judgment to which petitioner refers.

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ALTER JUDGMENT—C-01-20765 RMW

KF/MAG

E-FILED on 9/29/05

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

CESAR CASTILLO,

Petitioner,

v.

DEREL ADAMS, Warden,

Respondent.

No. C-01-20765 RMW

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ALTER

JUDGMENT

On January 25, 2005, the court denied petitionerCesar Castillo habeasrelief. Petitioner now asks the

court to alter or amend its judgment.1 Petitioner argues that the court misstated the facts and misapplied the

law.

Petitionerfirst arguesthat the courtfailed to cite crucialtestimony bythe victimsinitsstatement offacts.

Thisfailure, according to petitioner, led the court to incorrectly analyze petitioner’s claimthat the trialcourt had

a duty to sua sponte instruct the jury on the defense of accident. Had the court considered this testimony,

according to petitioner, itwould have realized that petitioner’stwo defenses,first, that he did notstab the victim

and, second, that he did not intend to stab the victim were not inconsistent. The argument that the court’s

statement of the facts impacted its judgment is without merit. Although the court’s statement of facts did not

Case 5:01-cv-20765-RMW Document 11 Filed 09/29/05 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

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ALTER JUDGMENT—C-01-20765 RMW

KF/MAG

2

cite the testimony to the detail desired by petitioner, the facts recited by the court acknowledged that one of

the eyewitnesses, Eric D., “admitted that the events happened so quickly he could not be certain that the object

petitioner held was a knife and not keys or some other article.” 1/25/05 Order at 3. It also explicitly

recognized petitioner’s argument that the victim, Anthony, may have been wounded, not as a result of having

beenintentionally stabbed by petitioner, but from having fallen down the stairs withpetitioner and having been

accidentally hurt by the bushes or another item during his fall. Id. at 11.

The court’s determination was based upon itsrecognitionof the evidence presented at trial, including

the evidence petitioner contends that the court overlooked. Inlight of28 U.S.C. § 2254, this court assessed

the state courts’legaldeterminations about whethersubstantialevidence supported a defense of accident such

that the trial court was obligated to sua sponte instruct the jury on the defense of accident. This court’s

conclusion (namely that the California court’s determination that substantial evidence did not support this

defense was not contrary to clearly established federal law) was not in error. Thus, the court declines to alter

its judgment on this matter.

Second, petitioner argues that the court erred infindingpetitioner's claimthat the state trialcourt failed

to instruct as to the intent element of assault to be procedurally defaulted. This court determined that the state

court’s decision rested onstate proceduralgrounds:namely that petitioner had failed to object to or otherwise

request clarification the instruction before the trial court. This court also determined that it did not have

jurisdiction to review a state court’s misapplicationof a state procedural rule. Poland v. Stewart, 169 F.3d

573, 484 (9th Cir. 1999). Petitioner now argues that the state court did not misapply a state procedural rule,

rather that the rule applied by the state courts did not exist. At base, he reasserts his argument that the state

court improperly applied a procedural requirement that a defendant must object to a jury instruction that is

otherwise legally correct before an appellate court may consider the argument, unless the substantial rights of

the parties were affected thereby. He asserts that the state appellate court erred in applying this procedural

requirement to his case because the case the state court cited assetting forththe proceduralrule deals onlywith

failuresto instruct onevidentiary matters. Petitioner’s arguments in the present motion break no new ground.

The court has already considered them. 1/25/05 Order at 7-8. It declines to alter or amend its January 25,

2005 Order.

Case 5:01-cv-20765-RMW Document 11 Filed 09/29/05 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

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ALTER JUDGMENT—C-01-20765 RMW

KF/MAG

3

Finally, petitionerrenews his argument thatCALJIC 2.90 read at histrialdefined a lowerstandardthan

that required by the Due Process Clause. He clarifies that his contention was not that the phases “to a moral

certainty” or “depending on moral evidence” were necessary to convey the standard of proof beyond a

reasonable doubt. This was not the court’s interpretation of petitioner’s argument. The court’s decision that

the state court’s determination on this matter does not warrant habeas relief stands: CALJIC 2.90 as read at

petitioner’strialdid not violate his right to due process. This instruction has been upheld bythe NinthCircuit,

which has read Victor v. Nebraska, 511 U.S. 1, 5 (1994), upon which petitioner continues to base his

argument, as essentially sanctioning the definition of reasonable doubt adopted in CALJIC No. 2.90 in its

present form. See Drayden v. White, 232 F.3d 704, 715 (9thCir. 2000), Lisenbee v. Henry, 166 F.3d 997,

1000 (9th Cir. 1999).

For the foregoing reasons, petitioner's motion to amend the order and alter the judgment therein is

denied.

DATED: 9/26/05 /s/ Ronald M. Whyte

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

Case 5:01-cv-20765-RMW Document 11 Filed 09/29/05 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

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ALTER JUDGMENT—C-01-20765 RMW

KF/MAG

4

Notice of this document has been electronically sent to:

Counsel for Petitioner:

Richard Such jsuch@comcast.net

Counsel for Respondent:

Dorian Yung dorian.jung@doj.ca.gov

Each party’s counsel is responsible for ensuring that co-counsel receives a copy of this order if co-counsel

has not registered for e-filing pursuant to the court’s CM/ECF program.

DATED: 9/29/05 /s/ MAG

Chambers of Judge Whyte

Case 5:01-cv-20765-RMW Document 11 Filed 09/29/05 Page 4 of 4