Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02015/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02015-1/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 - 09cv2015-WQH-WMC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WARREN LAMAR BERRYMAN,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 09cv2015 WQH(WMC)

ORDER

vs.

ANTHONY HEDGPETH, Warden, and

EDMUND G. BROWN JR., the Attorney

General of the State of California,

Respondents.

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (ECF No. 18)

of Magistrate Judge William McCurine Jr., filed on June 21, 2010, recommending that this

Court deny the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Petitioner Warren Lamar Berryman

(ECF No. 1).

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On September 14, 2009, Petitioner, proceeding pro se, initiated this action by filing his

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (ECF No. 1). On September 22, 2009, the Magistrate

Judge issued a Notice Regarding Possible Failure to Exhaust and One-Year Statute of

Limitations advising Petitioner of the consequences of failure to exhaust and of the applicable

statute of limitations. (ECF No. 3). On November 9, 2009, Respondent filed a Motion to

Dismiss. (ECF No. 6). On December 16, 2009, Petitioner filed an Opposition. (ECF No. 8).

On January 1, 2010, Petitioner filed a Motion to Stay. (ECF No. 9). On March 3, 2010, the

Case 3:09-cv-02015-WQH-WMC Document 21 Filed 07/27/11 Page 1 of 5
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 - 09cv2015-WQH-WMC

Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the Court grant

in part and deny in part Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss and that the Court deny Petitioner’s

Motion to Stay. (ECF No. 10). On May 20, 2010, this Court adopted the Report and

Recommendation in its entirety and dismissed Petitioner’s first, second, third, fourth, and

seventh claims. (ECF No. 11). Claim number five that “Petitioner was denied his 6th

Amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel at trial and on direct appeal” and claim

number six that “the trial court erred reversibly in failing to sua sponte instruct the jury that

the Robles brothers and Jessica Martinez were accomplices as a matter of law” were not

dismissed. See (ECF No. 1 at 45, 52). 

On August 26, 2010, Respondent filed an Answer to Petitioner’s remaining claims

(ECF No. 14). On September 22, 2010, Petitioner filed a Traverse. (ECF No. 16). On March

1, 2011, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the

Court deny the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (ECF No. 18). On March 29, 2011,

Petitioner filed Objections to the Report and Recommendation. (ECF No. 20). 

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 ... 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).

DISCUSSION

Petitioner objects to the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. Accordingly, the

Court reviews the Petition and the Report and Recommendation de novo.

The Magistrate Judge correctly found that this Court’s review of the Petition is

governed by the deferential standard of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of

1996. Under this standard, a petition cannot be granted unless the state court decision was

“contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as

Case 3:09-cv-02015-WQH-WMC Document 21 Filed 07/27/11 Page 2 of 5
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 - 09cv2015-WQH-WMC

determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or 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); see also Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 404-05

(2000). 

The Magistrate Judge correctly conducted an independent review of the record to

determine whether the state court decision regarding Petitioner’s ineffective assistance of

counsel claims were objectively unreasonable. 

For ineffective assistance of counsel to provide a basis for habeas relief, Petitioner must

demonstrate two things. First, he must show that counsel’s performance was deficient.

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). “This requires showing that counsel

made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the ‘counsel’ guaranteed the

defendant by the Sixth Amendment.” Id. Second, he must show counsel’s deficient

performance prejudiced the defense. Id. This requires showing that counsel’s errors were so

serious they deprived Petitioner “of a fair trial, a trial whose result is reliable.” Id. 

The Magistrate Judge correctly found that “defense counsel argued extensively and

somewhat successfully against the motion in limine [to exclude comment regarding the length

of the Robles’ brothers’ sentences].” (ECF No. 10). The Magistrate Judge correctly found that

defense counsel “thoroughly cross-examined the Robles brothers about the terms and details

of their plea agreements.” Id. at 10-11. The Magistrate Judge correctly found that counsel’s

representation of Petition did not fall below an objective standard of reasonableness. The

Magistrate Judge also correctly found that Petitioner did not demonstrate prejudice “[e]ven if

one were to assume Petitioner’s attorney was able to preclude Officer Cuevas from discussing

the Robels brothers’ initial statement to her ....” Id. at 12. The Magistrate Judge correctly

concluded that the state court’s decision was not contrary to clearly established federal law and

was not an unreasonable application of federal law. 

Generally, a challenge to a state’s jury instructions does not concern constitutional

issues that can be addressed on habeas review. See Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 71-72;

Laboa v. Calderon, 224 F.3d 972, 979 (9th Cir. 2000). However, a state’s jury instruction

Case 3:09-cv-02015-WQH-WMC Document 21 Filed 07/27/11 Page 3 of 5
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

- 4 - 09cv2015-WQH-WMC

error constitutes a violation of due process where the error so infects the trial the resulting

conviction violates due process. Cupp v. Naughten, 414 U.S. 141 (1973); Middleton v. McNeil,

541 U.S. 433 (2004); Hayes v. Woodford, 301 F.3d 1054, 1086 n.38 (9th Cir. 2002). Petitioner

must show the error had a “substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the

jury’s verdict.” Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 637 (1993); see also Hanna v. Riveland,

87 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir. 1996).

The Magistrate Judge correctly found that Petitioner did not demonstrate that his trial

was fundamentally unfair due to alleged errors in state jury instructions. The Magistrate Judge

correctly found that “the state appellate court’s determination that any instructional error at

Petitioner’s trial was harmless and was not unreasonable.” Id. at 14. The Magistrate Judge

correctly concluded that the state court’s decision was not contrary to clearly established

federal law and was not an unreasonable application of federal law. 

The Court has reviewed de novo all aspects of the R&R, lodgments, and filings in this

case and concludes that the Magistrate Judge correctly recommended that the Petition be

denied. 

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

A certificate of appealability must be obtained by a petitioner in order to pursue an

appeal from a final order in a Section 2254 habeas corpus proceeding. See 28 U.S.C. §

2253(c)(1)(A); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). Pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules Governing

Section 2254 Cases, “[t]he district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when

it enters a final order adverse to the applicant.” 

A certificate of appealability should be issued only where the petition presents a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). A

certificate should issue where the prisoner shows that jurists of reason would find it debatable

whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right, and whether the

district court was correct in its procedural ruling. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000). For the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation and in this Order, the Court

concludes that jurists of reason would not find it debatable whether this Court was correct in

Case 3:09-cv-02015-WQH-WMC Document 21 Filed 07/27/11 Page 4 of 5
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

- 5 - 09cv2015-WQH-WMC

denying the Petition. The Court denies a certificate of appealability. 

CONCLUSION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 18) is

ADOPTED in its entirety and the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No.1) is DENIED.

A certificate of appealability is DENIED. The Clerk of the Court shall close this case.

DATED: July 27, 2011

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-02015-WQH-WMC Document 21 Filed 07/27/11 Page 5 of 5