Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01136/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01136-0/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

 

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

MARK LEWIS KINNEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

AMY MILLER, Warden,

Defendant.

Case No.: 14cv1136-JAH (KSC)

ORDER ADOPTING THE 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT 

AND RECOMMENDATION; 

DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT 

OF HABEAS CORPUS; AND 

DENYING CERTIFICATE OF 

APPEALABILITY

INTRODUCTION

Petitioner Mark Lewis Kinney (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, 

filed a writ of habeas corpus (“Petition”) under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Doc. No. 1. Respondent 

Amy Miller (“Respondent”) filed an answer and supporting memorandum of points and 

authorities to which Petitioner filed a traverse. Doc. Nos. 6, 26. The case was referred to 

United States Magistrate Judge Karen Crawford for a Report and Recommendation 

(“Report”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Judge Crawford’s Report recommended 

denying the petition in its entirety, and Petitioner filed objections to the Report. After 

careful consideration of the entire record, and for the reasons set forth below, the Court 

OVERRULES Petitioner’s objections; ADOPTS Judge Crawford’s Report; DENIES the 

instant petition in its entirety; and DENIES issuing a Certificate of Appealability. 

Case 3:14-cv-01136-JAH-KSC Document 51 Filed 05/06/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 6
2

 

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

BACKGROUND1

On February 20, 2011, Petitioner was convicted of five counts of committing lewd 

acts upon a child, pursuant to Cal. Penal Code § 288(a) (counts 2, 5, 6, 7, and 8); two counts 

of using a minor to perform prohibited acts, pursuant to Cal. Penal § 311.4(c) (counts 3 and 

9); and one count of possessing matter depicting a person under 18 in sexual conduct, 

pursuant to Cal. Penal Code § 3.11.11 (count 10). See Doc. No. 6-14, at 11. The jury found 

Petitioner not guilty for counts 1 and 4. Id. at 219, 222. Petitioner was sentenced on March 

18, 2011, to an indeterminate term of 15 years to life for count 2. Doc. No. 6-13 at 3-22. 

As to counts 5, 6, 7, and 8, petitioner was sentenced to determinate term of six years for 

each count, to run concurrent with the indeterminate term of 15 years to life. Id. Finally, 

for counts 3, 9, and 10, petitioner was sentenced to a determinate term of two years for 

each count, also running concurrently with the 15 years to life sentence. Id. at 16-20.

Petitioner filed a writ of habeas corpus in the California Court of Appeal on January 

5, 2011. See Doc. No. 6-14. On November 13, 2012, the court denied the petition. Doc. 

No. 6-17. Petitioner also filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus with the Supreme Court 

of California where the court denied Petitioner’s request with no comment. Doc. No. 6-19

at 2. 

Petitioned filed the instant petition on May 5, 2014, and raised the following grounds 

for relief: (1) the trial court failed to provide a sua sponte instruction to the jury on battery 

as a lesser included offense of lewd acts on a child; and (2) Petition was wrongfully 

sentenced under the California “one strike” law in violation of the ex post facto clause of 

the United States Constitution. Doc. No. 1 at 6-7. Respondent filed a response and 

Petitioner subsequently filed a Traverse, withdrawing ground one for relief, thereby, 

leaving the wrongful sentencing as the sole basis for relief. Doc. Nos. 6, 26. Judge 

Crawford filed a Report, wherein which Petitioner filed objections. Doc. Nos. 27, 40. 

Respondent did not file a reply. 

 1 The underlying facts set forth in the report are adopted in toto and referenced as if fully set forth herein. The Court provides 

only a brief procedural background. 

Case 3:14-cv-01136-JAH-KSC Document 51 Filed 05/06/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 6
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

LEGAL STANDARD

The district court’s role in reviewing a magistrate judge’s report and 

recommendation is set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Under this statute, the court “shall 

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 judge.” Id. As to the portions of the report to which no objection is

made, the court may assume the correctness of the magistrate judge’s findings of fact and 

decide the motion on the applicable law. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n. 13 

(9th Cir. 2005) (stating that “de novo review of a [report] is only required when an 

objection is made”); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) 

(en banc) (holding that 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c) “makes it clear that the district judge must 

review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, 

but not otherwise.”).

DISCUSSION

Petitioner alleges general objections to the Report by stating the magistrate judge

improperly reviewed the judgment entered by the trial court. Specifically, Petitioner alleges 

there was an ex post facto violation when the trial judge sentenced him under California’s

“one strike rule.” Additionally, Petitioner requests the issuance of a Certificate of 

Appealability. 

Ex Post Facto 

Petitioner alleges the trial court improperly sentenced him under California Penal 

Code § 667.61 (“one strike rule”) to an indeterminate term of 15 years to life for count 2. 

See Doc. No. 1 at 7. Petitioner specifically alleges he should have been sentenced under 

the pre-September 2006 statue because the criminal acts occurred prior to the enactment of 

the September 2006 amendment.

2 The California Court of Appeal noted that the jury had 

 2 In September 2006, an amendment to California Penal code § 667.61(B) required a sentence of 15 years to life for violations 

of California Penal Code § 228(a). Doc. No. 12. Prior to September 2006, violators of § 288(a) could receive probation in lieu 

of the mandatory 15 year to life sentence. 

Case 3:14-cv-01136-JAH-KSC Document 51 Filed 05/06/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 6
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

been instructed, in both the complaint and the separate jury instruction, that the provided 

date range for the alleged criminal conduct was between November 12, 2006, and 

November 12, 2008. Doc. No. 6-17 at 12. Judge Crawford notes in the Report that the plain 

language of the complaint and jury instructions properly places Petitioner’s criminal 

conduct within the amended version of California Penal Code § 667.61. Doc. No. 27 at 8. 

Petitioner filed objections to the magistrates Report, arguing that the magistrate 

failed to properly review the two sets of evidence, containing sworn testimony, placing the 

time of the incident during the pre-September 2006 Statue. Doc. No. 40 at 6. Petitioner is 

advocating for heavier weight to be placed on a witness’ (“Ms. C”) preliminary hearing 

testimony, rather than the testimony at trial. However, Petitioner’s habeas is based upon a 

due process or ex post facto violation rather than a sufficiency of evidence attack on his 

conviction.3 Therefore, as noted in the Report, the Court finds no need to independently 

review the conviction through a Jackson analysis. 

Furthermore, Ms. C’s testimony corroborated the timeline placing the criminal 

conduct clearly after the amended one strike rule. Specifically, Ms. C recalls the incident 

occurred when she was spending the night alone at Petitioner’s house. Doc. No. 27. Ms. C 

testified that she did not begin spending the night alone at Petitioner’s house until she was 

ten years old. Id. The record indicates Ms. C’s tenth birthday was in November 2006, 

directly placing Petitioner’s criminal conduct after the amendment to the one strike rule. 

Id. Nevertheless, the jury was fully exposed to Ms. C’s testimony at trial and the 

preliminary hearing testimony relied upon by Petitioner prior to reaching a verdict. See 

Doc. No. 27 at 9. As such, the Court agrees that the jury was properly instructed to decide 

whether Petitioner’s conduct occurred at the time subject to the amended version of the 

one strike rule. Based upon the evidence introduced at trial and reviewing the evidence in 

 3 Under Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979), the relevant inquiry is “whether after viewing the evidence in the light 

most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a 

reasonable doubt.” 

Case 3:14-cv-01136-JAH-KSC Document 51 Filed 05/06/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 6
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

light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational trier of fact could have found the 

government proved each element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

This Court’s careful de novo review of the record reflects the magistrate judge 

presented a cogent analysis of Petitioner’s claims and, thus, finds the magistrate judge’s 

findings and conclusion are not clearly erroneous. The specific factual information, on 

which the Report relied, is corroborated by the California Court of Appeal’s opinion. The 

court must give deference to state court findings and presume them to be accurate. See 28 

U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1). The presumption can only be rebutted through clear and convincing 

evidence. Id.; Parke v. Raley, 506 U.S. 20, 35 (1992). Petitioner has failed to overcome the 

evidentiary burden. Therefore, Petitioners’ objections are OVERULED. Accordingly, this 

Court ADOPTS the Report in full and DENIES the instant petition in its entirety. 

Certificate of Appealability 

Pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules governing 28 U.S.C. § 2254, a “district 

court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse 

to the applicant.” A state prisoner may not appeal the denial of a section 2254 habeas 

petition prior to obtaining a certificate of appealability from a circuit justice or judge. 28 

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A); see also United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268, 1269-70 (9th Cir. 

1997) (holding that district courts retain authority to issue certificates of appealability 

under AEDPA). A certificate of appealability is authorized “if the applicant has made a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To meet 

this threshold, a petitioner must show that: (1) the issues are debatable among jurists of 

reason, (2) that a court could resolve the issues in a different manner, or (3) that the 

questions are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further. Lambright v. Stewart, 

220 F.3d 1022, 1024-25 (9th Cir. 2000) (citations omitted).

Based on this Courts review of the magistrate judge’s Report, and the entire record 

in this matter, the Court finds no reasonable jurists would find it debatable that Petitioner 

has failed to show an entitlement to federal habeas corpus relief. Petitioner has not made 

Case 3:14-cv-01136-JAH-KSC Document 51 Filed 05/06/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 6
6

 

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 requisite substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Accordingly, 

Petitioner’s application for a Certificate of Appealability is DENIED. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDERED

For the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. Petitioner’s objections to the Magistrate Judge’s report and 

recommendations are OVERRULED;

2. The Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation is ADOPTED in 

its entirety;

3. The instant petition is DENIED WITH PREJUDICE;

4. Petitioner is DENIED a Certificate of Appealability.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 6, 2020 

_________________________________

Hon. John A. Houston

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-01136-JAH-KSC Document 51 Filed 05/06/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 6