Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-00574/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-00574-0/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 - 05cv0574

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Armando Mercado,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 05 cv 0574-WQH (LSP))

ORDER (1) ADOPTING REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION AND (2)

DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS

vs.

Robert J. Hernandez,

Defendant.

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is the review of the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate

Judge Louisa S. Porter, filed on November 17, 2005, recommending that Petitioner’s Writ of Habeas

Corpus should be denied and the case dismissed with prejudice.

BACKGROUND

Petitioner Armando Mercado seeks habeas relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging

his conviction in state court. Petitioner claims that he was denied his due process right to a fair

trial as a result of (1) ineffective assistance of counsel, and (2) an improper response by the trial

judge to the jury’s request for a readback. Petition at 6. Respondent asserts that habeas relief

should be denied because Petitioner failed to show that the decision of the California Court of

Appeals upholding Petitioner’s conviction was contrary to, or an unreasonable application of,

federal law. Answer at 5. In addition, Respondent contends that the federal court may not grant

Petitioner’s claim for habeas relief based on the trial court’s improper response because Petitioner

did not present this issue to California’s highest court in either his petition for review or for state

Case 3:05-cv-00574-WQH-POR Document 22 Filed 10/11/06 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

- 2 - 05cv0574

habeas relief. Id. (citing to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (b) (federal court may not grant writ unless the

petitioner exhausted his state court remedies with respect to all claims contained in the petition.)) 

On November 17, 2005, Magistrate Judge Porter issued a Report and Recommendation

recommending that the district court deny the Petition. Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) at

12. The Report and Recommendation concluded that Petitioner failed to show that he was

prejudiced by the decision of his trial counsel not to object to the testimony of the arresting officer

that he felt “pretty confident” that the correct person was in custody based on the identification by

an eye witness. R&R at 7-8. The Report and Recommendation agreed with the finding of the

California Court of Appeal that “it was not reasonably probable that any juror who was not

otherwise convinced that Petitioner was guilty would be induced to abandon those doubts in

reliance on [the officer’s] testimony” and concluded that Petitioner failed to establish a claim of

ineffective assistance of counsel. Id. at 9. 

The Report and Recommendation found that Petitioner failed to present his claim that the

trial judge improperly responded to the request for a readback by the jurors to the state supreme

court, but recommended denying habeas relief on the grounds that Petitioner did not cite any

evidence in support of the allegation. Id. at 11.

On December 7, 2005, Petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal from the Report and

Recommendation prior to the expiration of the period for filing objections to the Report and

Recommendation. Petitioner then filed a Request for Certificate of Appealability. The District

Court denied the request for Appealability based on the Appeal being premature. The Ninth

Circuit denied the Request for Appeal and the record was returned to this Court on April 28, 2006. 

The Court issued an order which required the parties to file any Objections to the Report and

Recommendation on or before July 14, 2006 and any Replies on or before August 4, 2006. No

Objections were filed.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The duties of the district court in connection with a magistrate judge’s report and

recommendation are set forth in Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1). The district court must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report ...

Case 3:05-cv-00574-WQH-POR Document 22 Filed 10/11/06 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

- 3 - 05cv0574

to which objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings

or recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also United States v.

Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989).

When no objections are filed, the district court may assume the correctness of the

magistrate judge’s factual findings and decide the motion on the applicable law. See Campbell v.

United States Dist. Ct., 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974). Under such circumstances, the Ninth

Circuit has held that “a failure to file objections only relieves the trial court of its burden to give de

novo review to factual findings; conclusions of law must still be reviewed de novo.” Barilla v.

Ervin, 886 F.2d 1514, 1518 (9th Cir. 1989).

DISCUSSION

Petitioner requests habeas relief on the grounds that: (1) the inadequate performance of his

trial counsel resulted in a violation of his right to due process and his Sixth Amendment right to

effective assistance of counsel, and (2) the trial court issued an improper response to the jury’s

request for a readback in violation of his due process right to a fair trial. Petition at 6. 

In order to prevail on a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel, Petitioner must prove

that defense counsel’s conduct fell “outside the wide range of professional competence” and that

counsel’s deficient performance prejudiced Petitioner’s defense. Strickland v. Washington, 466

U.S. 668, 687 (1984). The Court need not address both the deficiency element and the prejudice

element of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim if Petitioner fails to make a sufficient

showing of either element. Id. at 697. The Magistrate Judge concluded that the decision by

defense counsel not to object to the arresting officer’s testimony did not rise to the level of

prejudice, regardless of whether the decision was a reasonable trial tactic. R&R at 8. The defense

counsel had the opportunity to present any discrepancies or issues relating to identity during crossexamination of the eye witness who had previously identified Petitioner to the arresting officer. 

Id. at 9. In addition, the trial judge explicitly instructed the jurors that they were “the sole judges

of the believability of a witness and the weight to be given the testimony of each witness.” Id.

The Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that the conduct of defense counsel did not violate

Petitioner’s constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel.

Case 3:05-cv-00574-WQH-POR Document 22 Filed 10/11/06 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 1

 Although Petitioner failed to exhaust his state court remedies by not presenting this claim

to the state supreme court, the Court may deny the claim on the merits. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2).

- 4 - 05cv0574

The Magistrate Judge also concluded that Petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief on his

claim that he was denied a fair trial by the trial court’s improper response to the jury’s request for

a readback. R&R at 10.1

 The jurors requested a readback of specific witness testimony regarding

doorknobs and voices heard. Id. at 10-11 (citing Lodgment 1 at 133.) The end of the jury’s

request states: “nothing about fingerprints and doorknobs.” Id. at 11. Petitioner claims that this

phrase was a response from the trial court to the readback request. Id. The Magistrate Judge

reasonably found that the phrase appeared to be a clarification by the jury of the scope of their

request rather than a response by the trial judge. Id. The phrase was written in the “question”

section of the request form whereas the “response” section of the form was left blank. Id. There

was no signature from the trial judge on the form to indicate that a response was given. Id. The

Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that there is no evidence in the record to support Petitioner’s

claim that he was denied a fair trial by the response of the judge to the jury’s request for a

readback.

CONCLUSION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation is adopted in its entirety

and the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is denied. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment

in favor of Respondent.

DATED: October 11, 2006

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-00574-WQH-POR Document 22 Filed 10/11/06 Page 4 of 4