Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-00104/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-00104-0/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

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVEN JOSEPH KALLO,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-03-0104 LKK/GGH P

vs.

SYLVIA GARCIA, Warden, O R D E R

Respondent.

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding through counsel, has

filed this application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local

General Order No. 262.

On April 6, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings and

recommendations herein which were served on all parties and which

contained notice to all parties that any objections to the

findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. 

////

Case 2:03-cv-00104-LKK -GGH Document 38 Filed 09/21/05 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

2

Petitioner has filed objections to the findings and

recommendations.

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

§ 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-304, this court has conducted a

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the

entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to

be supported by the record and by proper analysis, with the

additional reasons as set out below.

A. STANDARD OF REVIEW

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA)

“worked substantial changes to the law of habeas corpus,”

establishing more deferential standards of review to be used by a

federal habeas court in assessing a state court’s adjudication of

a criminal defendant’s claims of constitutional error. Moore v.

Calderon, 108 F.3d 261, 263 (9th Cir. 1997); 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). 

Normally, applying the standards of review set forth in the

AEDPA, courts look through the unexplained decisions to the last

reasoned decision as the basis for the state court’s judgment. 

Gill v. Ayers, 342 F.2d 911, 917 n. 5 (9th Cir. 2003). Here,

that is the decision by the California Court of Appeal for the

Third District. 

28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) provides,

(d) 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, or

involved an unreasonable application of, clearly

Case 2:03-cv-00104-LKK -GGH Document 38 Filed 09/21/05 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

3

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 proceedings.

A decision is “contrary to” clearly established federal law

if its application of a rule contradicts the governing law set

forth in Supreme Court cases. Price v. Vincent, 538 U.S. 634,

640 (2003). A decision is an “unreasonable application” of

clearly established federal law if the correct legal principles

are identified but the application of those principles to the

facts in done unreasonably. Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362,

413 (2000). “The ‘unreasonable application’ clause requires the

state court decision to be more than incorrect or erroneous. The

state court's application of clearly established law must be

objectively unreasonable.” Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 75

(2003) (internal citations omitted).

B. CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT OPINION IN RELIFORD

In order to be candid, the court must note that the

instructions leave a lot to be desired. However, the California

Supreme Court has directly reviewed the instructions which

petitioner complains about and held that, while they were in need

of improvement, they were not unconstitutional as written. 

People v. Reliford, 29 Cal.4th 1007, 1015 (2003). As set out

above, this court’s review is limited and habeas can only be

granted if the application of the law by the state court is not

only incorrect but unreasonable. Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. at

75. The court is obligated to defer to the reasoned state court

Case 2:03-cv-00104-LKK -GGH Document 38 Filed 09/21/05 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

4

decision on the issue, and while the California Supreme Court

decision was not in this specific case, it was reviewing an

identical instruction and thus this court is obligated to follow

its outcome unless it is blatantly unreasonable. 

In Reliford, the Court reviewed the sentence “the weight and

significant of the evidence, if any, are for you to decide” and

stated that while it could “find no constitutional error in the

1999 version of the instruction” it nonetheless recognized that

“it could be improved.” 29 Cal.4th at 1016. This statement was

dicta but was reasoned and on-point. 

Further, “if a jury instruction is deemed ambiguous it will

violate due process only when a reasonable likelihood exists that

the jury has applied the challenged instruction in a manner that

violates the Constitution.” Gibson v. Ortiz, 387 F.3d 812, 820

(2004) (citing Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 72 (1991)). When

reviewing the instructions as a whole and the substantial

quantity of evidence presented against petitioner, the court

cannot find a reasonable likelihood that the jury applied a lower

standard of proof in determining that Mr. Kallo was guilty of the

charged crimes. 

C. OTHER QUESTIONS

The court agrees with the magistrate judge’s findings and

recommendations on the other issues raised and has nothing

further to add. 

////

////

Case 2:03-cv-00104-LKK -GGH Document 38 Filed 09/21/05 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

5

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed April 6, 2005,

are adopted in full; and

2. Petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus is

denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 20, 2005.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

SENIOR JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 2:03-cv-00104-LKK -GGH Document 38 Filed 09/21/05 Page 5 of 5