Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01925/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01925-5/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 

17cv1925-LAB (RBB)

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 

DAVID LERMA, 

Petitioner,

v. 

UNKNOWN, et al. 

Respondents.

Case No.: 17cv1925-LAB (RBB) 

ORDER DENYING PETITION 

FOR WRIT OF HABEAS 

CORPUS 

 Petitioner David Lerma was convicted in California state court of molesting 

his stepdaughter A.R. multiple times, beginning when she was eight years old. 

When she was thirteen or fourteen years old, she told her mother, who contacted 

police. A social worker conducted a videotaped forensic interview of A.R. After an 

investigation, Lerma was tried and convicted on some but not all counts. Lerma 

then exhausted two claims, one based on admission of statements made during 

the interview, and a second based on failure to instruct on a lesser included 

offense. 

Lerma filed his petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2254. The petition was referred to Magistrate Judge Ruben Brooks for report 

and recommendation. The petition was dismissed with leave to amend twice, and 

the Third Amended Petition (Docket no. 8) is the operative pleading. 

Case 3:17-cv-01925-LAB-RBB Document 20 Filed 05/10/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2 

17cv1925-LAB (RBB)

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

On March 28, 2019, Judge Brooks issued his report and recommendation 

(the “R&R”), which recommended denial of the petition. Although objections to the 

R&R were due on April 30, Lerma did not file objections until May 4 at the earliest. 

His objections include the declaration of another inmate, who explains that he was 

helping Lerma prepare objections, but that transfers made it difficult for Lerma to 

file objections on time. The Court construes this as Lerma’s request for leave to 

file late objections. So construed, the request is GRANTED, and the objections are 

accepted as filed. 

Unobjected-to Portions of R&R

 A district court has jurisdiction to review a Magistrate Judge's report and 

recommendation on dispositive matters. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). The Court may 

accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the R&R’s findings or 

recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). This section does not require some 

lesser review by the district court when no objections are filed. Thomas v. Arn, 474 

U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985). The Court reviews de novo those portions of the R & R 

to which specific written objection is made. United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 

1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). 

 Having reviewed the R&R, the Court finds it correctly sets forth the legal 

standards governing habeas relief and Lerma’s substantive claims. The Court 

ADOPTS both these standards, and all other portions of the R&R to which Lerma 

has not objected. These include the procedural history, summary of the evidence 

and other facts, and rulings on other claims. 

Objections

 Lerma objects that the charges were not proved beyond a reasonable doubt. 

(Obj. (Docket no. 19) at 2:15–20.) He also argues that the prosecution suborned 

perjury by encouraging A.R. to make up an incident of molestation they knew had 

never happened. (Id. at 4:8–26.) These claims are unexhausted. (See generally, 

Pet. for Review in Cal. Supreme Ct. (Docket no. 13-13).) They also lack merit. 

Case 3:17-cv-01925-LAB-RBB Document 20 Filed 05/10/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3 

17cv1925-LAB (RBB)

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

 Lerma objects that admission of A.R.’s forensic interview amounted to 

knowing use of false or perjured testimony. His objections focus on one portion of 

her interview, concerning events on a single day after Lerma and A.R.’s mother 

had divorced. On that day A.R., Lerma, Lerma’s then-girlfriend, and the girlfriend’s 

son all went to Legoland. A.R. was twelve years old at the time of the events.1 At 

trial, she remembered nothing unusual happening to her on that day. But in her 

preliminary interview, she had had described an incident involving painful 

penetration. On cross-examination, Lerma’s own lawyer read from the hearing 

testimony, and elicited from A.R. that nothing had happened on the day of the 

Legoland trip. On redirect, the prosecutor asked her to explain the inconsistency. 

She said she remembered the incident happening when she was twelve years old, 

but forgot whether it happened the day of the Legoland trip or some other time. 

 The prosecutor sought to admit portions of the interview. Lerma’s counsel 

objected, arguing that it was consistent with A.R.’s trial testimony, and that this 

would amount to improper bolstering. The trial court admitted the interview as a 

prior inconsistent statement. 

 Lerma’s state habeas petitions addressed the recording’s admissibility under 

state law, and also argued that its admission violated due process.2 But as the 

R&R correctly points out, he never argued to either the California Court of Appeal 

or the California Supreme Court that the prosecution had knowingly offered 

perjured testimony or other false evidence. (See generally, Docket nos. 13-8, 13-

13.) A.R.’s testimony at trial can be said to be confused and somewhat 

                                               

1

 She was thirteen or fourteen and in the seventh grade at the time of the interview, 

and she was in the ninth grade at the time of trial. (See Docket no. 13–11 (Court 

of Appeals’ Denial of Petition) at 18.) 

2

 The R&R correctly explains why the federal due process claim lacks merit. And 

alleged violations of state evidentiary rules do not give rise to federal habeas 

claims. 

Case 3:17-cv-01925-LAB-RBB Document 20 Filed 05/10/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4 

17cv1925-LAB (RBB)

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

contradictory, but nothing in the record suggests the prosecution knew it was false. 

See United States v. Zuno-Arce, 44 F.3d 1420, 1423 (9th Cir. 1995). The record 

provides no support for any claim that the government knew either the forensic 

interview or A.R.’s trial testimony was false. See id. (holding that mere 

discrepancies in evidence did not support finding of prosecutorial misconduct or 

claim that defendant was deprived of a fair trial). Even if Lerma had exhausted this 

claim, it would be denied on the merits. 

 The objection that the jury convicted Lerma even though he had not been 

proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is similarly non-meritorious. The jury was 

entitled to believe A.R.’s explanation for giving an inconsistent account,3 as well 

as other evidence of Lerma’s guilt, and could easily have found Lerma guilty 

beyond a reasonable doubt. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 324 (1979). 

On habeas review, this Court cannot, as Lerma suggests, substitute its own 

judgment for the jury’s. See Cavazos v. Smith, 65 U.S. 1, 2 (2011). Even if Lerma 

had exhausted this claim, it would be denied on the merits. 

Conclusion and Order

 Lerma’s objections are OVERRULED. The Court ADOPTS the R&R. The 

Petition is DENIED, and a certificate of appealability is also DENIED. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 10, 2019 

 Hon. Larry Alan Burns 

Chief United States District Judge

                                               

3

 As part of its discussion, the Court of Appeal’s reasoned decision gave a lucid 

explanation for the differences between A.R.’s forensic interview and trial 

testimony, based on her age, maturity, and the amount of time that had passed. 

(See Docket no. 13-11 at 18.) This shows one possible line of reasoning that 

rational jurors might have followed. 

Case 3:17-cv-01925-LAB-RBB Document 20 Filed 05/10/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4