Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01572/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01572-2/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

27

28

`

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM ALLEN GARRETT,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 14CV1572 BEN (PCL)

ORDER:

(1) ADOPTING REPORT AND 

 RECOMMENDATION;

(2) OVERRULING OBJECTIONS;

(3) DENYING MOTION FOR AN 

 EVIDENTIARY HEARING;

(4) DENYING PETITION FOR 

 WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS;

(5) DENYING CERTIFICATE OF 

 APPEALABILITY; 

(6) DENYING REQUEST FOR 

 EXPEDITED RULING; AND

(7) DENYING MOTIONS FOR 

 RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT AS 

 MOOT

(8) DENYING PETITION FOR 

WRIT OF MANDATE

[Docket Nos. 9, 27, 31, 38, 42, 44]

vs.

JEFFREY BEARD,

Respondent.

 

- 1 - 14cv1572

Case 3:14-cv-01572-BEN-PCL Document 46 Filed 04/15/15 Page 1 of 7
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

Petitioner William Allen Garrett, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Docket No. 1). On

July 24, 2014, Petitioner filed an ex parte request for an evidentiary hearing. (Docket

No. 9.) Respondent filed a Response to the Petition on September 26, 2014, and

Petitioner filed a Traverse on October 16, 2014. (Docket Nos. 19, 25). On December

29, 2014, Magistrate Judge Peter C. Lewisissued a thoughtful and thoroughReport and

Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that the request for an evidentiary hearing

and Petition be denied. (Docket No. 27). Between January 8, 2015 and January 16,

2015, Petitioner filed Objections to the R&R, an application for a certificate of

appealability, and a request for expedited ruling. (Docket Nos. 28, 29, 31.) 

On January 21, 2015, Petitioner filed a notice of appeal with the Ninth Circuit. 

(Docket No. 32.) Since that time, Petitioner has also filed copies of two documents he

appears to have submitted to the state court of appeals and state superior court. 

(Docket Nos. 33, 36.) Most recently, Petitioner filed two motions for relief from

judgment and a petition for writ of mandate. (Docket No. 38, 42, 44.) On March 9,

2015, this Court denied Petitioner’s request for a certificate of appealability. (Docket

No. 40.) On April 14, 2015, the Ninth Circuit dismissed Petitioner’s appeal for lack

of jurisdiction. (Docket No. 45.)

This Court has carefully considered the R&R and Petitioner’s Objections. For

the reasons stated below, this Court OVERRULES the Objections and ADOPTS the

Report and Recommendation.

LEGAL STANDARD

A district judge “may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition” of

a magistrate judge on a dispositive matter. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1). “The district judge must determine de novo any part of the [report and

recommendation] that has been properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). 

However, “[t]he statute makesit clear that the district judge must review the magistrate

judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not

- 2 - 14cv1572

Case 3:14-cv-01572-BEN-PCL Document 46 Filed 04/15/15 Page 2 of 7
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

otherwise.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en

banc) (emphasis in original); see also Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th

Cir. 2005). “Neither the Constitution nor the statute requires a district judge to review,

de novo, findings and recommendations that the partiesthemselves accept as correct.” 

Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121. The Court will not restate the R&R and its

conclusions asto every claim. Although the Court has conducted a de novo review and

fully adopts the R&R, the Court will only specifically address those issues to which

Petitioner has objected.

The following standard of review applies:

An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody

pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted with respect to any

claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings unless the

adjudication of the claim—

(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, orinvolved an unreasonable

application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme

Court of the United States; or

(2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination

of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.

28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).

A federal court may not issue a writ of habeas corpus “simply because that court

concludes in its independent judgment that the relevant state-court decision applied

clearly established federal law erroneously or incorrectly.” Renico v. Lett, 559 U.S.

766, 773 (2010) (quoting Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 411 (2000)). The state

court’s application must be “objectively unreasonable.” Id. (quoting Williams, 529

U.S. at 409). The standard is thus “highly deferential” and “demands that state-court

decisions be given the benefit of the doubt.” Id. (citations omitted). 

I. Petitioner’s Objections

A. Claims One and Two

As to Claims One and Two, it appears that Petitioner objects that he was

interrogated when he wasrecovering fromlife threatening injuries, under the influence

of pain medication, and with a history of mental illness. 

- 3 - 14cv1572

Case 3:14-cv-01572-BEN-PCL Document 46 Filed 04/15/15 Page 3 of 7
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

Claim One asserts that statements made to the deputy who was guarding

Petitioner when he was in the hospital should have been excluded because they were

made in a custodial setting after appointment of counsel and outside the presence of

counsel and that Petitioner was impaired by medication, his injuries, and his mental

health issues. The state appellate court concluded that the single question posed to

Petitioner by a guard, “what happened?” did not constitute interrogation, but was

instead casual conversation not giving rise to Miranda requirements. This conclusion

is not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established Federal law. As

the state appellate court explained, it was a single question by a guard, not acting as an

investigator, who asked no follow up questions after Petitioner responded. 

Additionally, as the R&R’s explains, the record does not support a finding that the

medication Petitioner was presumably on or his history of mental illness contributed

to his ability to understand the single question posed by a non-investigator. 

ClaimTwo assertsthat Petitioner’s waiver of his Miranda rights, prior to making

a statement to Detective Burkett, was involuntary. After considering the transcript of

the recorded interview with Petitioner, the state appellate court found Petitioner was

rational, that verbal exchanges between Detective Burkett and Petitioner were

understandable and logical, and that Petitioner presented his claims to the officers

coherently, including his claim that he did not want to hurt anyone and he was shot in

the side which meant he was running away from the officers. The state appellate

court’s conclusion that Petitioner’s waiver was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent is

not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established Federal law. 

As to both claims, the state appellate court’s concludes that to the extent there

was any error in the admission of Petitioner’s statements to the guard or Detective

Burkett, it was harmless. Statements similar to those made to the guard and Detective

Burkett were also made to a member of the Psychiatric Liaison Team and admitted at

trial. The state appellate court’s conclusion is also not an unreasonable application of

clearly established Federal law. 

- 4 - 14cv1572

Case 3:14-cv-01572-BEN-PCL Document 46 Filed 04/15/15 Page 4 of 7
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

The Court OVERRULES Petitioner’s Objections to the R&R as to Claims One

and Two.

B. Claim Four

The state appellate court and R&R conclude that the jury was presented with

sufficient evidence to support its verdict that Petitioner used a knife during the

burglary. Although Petitioner asserts a number of objections there are three primary

points raised as to this claim. First, Petitioner argues that the jury’s acquittal of

Petitioner on assault charges conflicts with the knife-use finding because the acquittal

means the jury rejected the officers’ testimony, rejected Petitioner’s tape recorded

statement, and found Petitioner wasrunning away fromthe officers. Second, Petitioner

claims that escape was not proven. Third, Petitioner asserts that the officers did not

testify that the weapon was used to intimidate, threaten, aide escape, or was displayed

in a menacing way.

Claims asserting insufficiency of the evidence “are subject to two layers of

judicial deference.” Coleman v. Johnson, 132 S. Ct. 2060, 2062 (2012). First, “on

direct appeal . . . [a] reviewing court may set aside the jury’s verdict on the ground of

insufficient evidence only if no rational trier of fact could have agreed with the jury.” 

Id. Second, because the claimarises on federal habeasreview, a federal court may only

overturn the state court “if the state court decision was objectively unreasonable.” Id.

The state appellate court’s conclusion that Petitioner’s acquittal for assault is not

inconsistent with the jury’s knife-use finding was not objectively unreasonable. As the

state appellate court explained, the jury could have found he used the knife in

completing or effectuating his escape from officers without intending to assault the

officers. Nor does the jury’s verdict on assault mean the jury rejected the officers’

testimony,rejected Petitioner’s taped statement, and found Petitioner wasrunning away

from the officers. As the state appellate court noted, the jury could have accepted or

rejected all or portions of this evidence. Both officers testified that Petitioner was

running at them. One of the officers testified that he saw a knife in Petitioner’s hand. 

- 5 - 14cv1572

Case 3:14-cv-01572-BEN-PCL Document 46 Filed 04/15/15 Page 5 of 7
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

Both officers testified that Petitioner had a knife in or near his hand after he was shot. 

Petitioner made statements suggesting he wanted the officers to shoot him and that he

thought that would be more likely if he had a knife, but he did not want to hurt anyone. 

Petitioner argued at trial that the forensic evidence indicated that he dropped the knife

and was running away from the officers, not moving toward them. As the state

appellate court accurately noted, the jury could have reasonably concluded that he

displayed the knife in a menacing manner to facilitate his flight from the scene of the

burglary, either through the officers (running at them) or out another exit (running

away from them). Additionally, the state appellate court explained that a verdict on one

count, here the assault counts, has no bearing on others, here the knife-use finding,

when evaluating a claim for sufficiency of the evidence. Clearly established Federal

law is not to the contrary. See United States v. Powell, 469 U.S. 57, 67 (1984) (finding

sufficiency of the evidence “review should be independent of the jury’s determination

that evidence on another count was insufficient”). 

As to Petitioner’s claim that escape was not proven, the state appellate court

found the evidence presented to the jury was sufficient to support a finding that

Petitioner used the knife in a menacing way to facilitate his escape. For the same

reasons noted above with regard to the evidence presented at trial, the Court cannot

find this conclusion objectively unreasonable or that no rational trier of fact could have

agreed with the jury.

Petitioner’s final objection isthat the officers did not testify that the weapon was

used to intimidate, threaten, aide escape, or displayed in a menacing way. The officers

did not need to testify to these legal conclusions. Rather, “it is the responsibility of the

jury—not the court—to decide what conclusions should be drawn from the evidence

admitted at trial.” Cavazos v. Smith, 132 S. Ct. 2, 4 (2011). This Court cannot “setaside the jury’s verdict on the ground of insufficient evidence” unless “no rational trier

of fact could have agreed with the jury.” Id. That is not the case here. 

/// 

- 6 - 14cv1572

Case 3:14-cv-01572-BEN-PCL Document 46 Filed 04/15/15 Page 6 of 7
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

II. Evidentiary Hearing

The Court agrees that Petitioner is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing. 

Campbell v. Wood, 18 F.3d 662, 679 (9th Cir. 1994) (finding an evidentiary hearing is

not “required on issues that can be resolved by reference to the state court record”);

Cullen v. Pinholster, 131 S. Ct. 1388, 1398 (finding “review under § 2254(d)(1) is

limited to the record that was before the state court that adjudicated the claim on the

merits”). 

III. Certificate of Appealability

The Court DENIES a certificate of appealability because the issues are not

debatable among jurists of reason and there are no questions adequate to deserve

encouragement. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003). 

IV. Other Filings

Petitioner’s petition for writ of mandate restates the arguments he already put

forward in his previous filings. The only variation is inclusion of a request that the

either the superior court of the Magistrate Judge be disqualified based on error. This

request lacks any merit and is DENIED. Petitioner’s request for an expedited ruling

is DENIED as moot. Petitioner’s two requests for relief from judgment are DENIED

as moot because the Court is only now entering judgment. 

CONCLUSION

Petitioner’s Objections are OVERRULED, the R&R is ADOPTED, and the

Petition is DENIED. The request for an evidentiary hearing is DENIED. The request

for expedited ruling, two requests for relief from judgment, and petition for writ of

mandate are DENIED. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment denying the Petition.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 14, 2015

Hon. Roger T. Benitez

United States District Judge

- 7 - 14cv1572

Case 3:14-cv-01572-BEN-PCL Document 46 Filed 04/15/15 Page 7 of 7