Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06323/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06323-3/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANDREW DONLEY APSIT, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

K. PROSPER, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:04-cv-06323-AWI-SMS-HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 12)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO

ENTER JUDGMENT

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On September 12, 2006, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and

Recommendations that the instant Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

be DENIED, and the Clerk of Court be directed to enter judgment in

favor of Respondent. These Findings and Recommendations were

served on all parties and contained notice that any objections were

to be filed within thirty (30) days from the date of service of

that order. On November 3, 2006, Petitioner filed a motion to

extend time. On November 6, 2006, the court granted Petitioner an

additional thirty (30) days within which to respond. On November

22, 2006, Petitioner filed objections to the Findings and

Recommendations.

Case 1:04-cv-06323-AWI -SMS Document 21 Filed 03/14/07 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

2

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636

(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de novo review of the case. 

Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Petitioner's

objections, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's

Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and proper

analysis. Petitioner's objections present no grounds for

questioning the Magistrate Judge's analysis.

Petitioner claims that this court should not give deference to

the state court's findings on the Miranda claim because the state

court never gave Petitioner a hearing. To the contrary, prior to

trial, the trial court held a hearing pursuant to California

Evidence Code § 402 to determine if Petitioner's incriminating

statements violated Miranda. While Plaintiff may dispute the facts

as found by the California courts concerning the officers' conduct,

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e), these factual findings are

presumed to be correct on federal habeas corpus review. Petitioner

has failed to rebut this presumption. 

In addition, for this court to grant habeas corpus relief, the

court must find that any instructional error "so infected the

entire trial that the resulting conviction violates due process." 

Henderson v. Kibbe, 431 U.S. 145, 154 (1977); Cupp v. Naughten,

414 U.S. 141, 146 (1973); Jeffries v. Bladgett, 5 F.3d 1180, 1195

(9th Cir. 1993). The showing of a due process violation for jury

instruction error is much higher on collateral review than on

direct review. Henderson, 431 U.S. at 154, 97 S.Ct. at 1736

(1977). Federal habeas relief is warranted only if the Court, after

reviewing the record, has “grave doubt” as to the error’s effect.

Stanton v. Benzler, 146 F.3d 726, 728 (9th Cir.1998). Petitioner

Case 1:04-cv-06323-AWI -SMS Document 21 Filed 03/14/07 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

3

has presented his arguments that the trial court erred under

California law regarding the jury instructions to the California

Court of Appeal and California Supreme Court, and these California

courts determined that the trial court did not violate California

law. This court must accept the state court's interpretation of

its own law. See Langford v. Day, 110 F.3d 1380, 1389 (9th Cir.

1996). In addition, as found by the Magistrate Judge, given the

overwhelming evidence against Petitioner, any instructional errors

did not prejudice Plaintiff. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed September 12,

2006, are ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED; and, 

3. The Clerk of Court enter judgment in favor of Respondent.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 13, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06323-AWI -SMS Document 21 Filed 03/14/07 Page 3 of 3