Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01545/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01545-2/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

06cv1545

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOEL R. HENDERSON,

Petitioner,

v.

MATTHEW CATE, Secretary of the

California Department of Corrections,

Respondent.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 06CV1545 JAH(WMc)

ORDER ADOPTING THE

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORTS

AND RECOMMENDATIONS

[DOCS. # 50, 71]; OVERRULING

PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS

[DOCS. # 58, 73]; DENYING

PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR

EVIDENTIARY HEARING [DOC.

# 66] AND DENYING PETITION

FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

IN ITS ENTIRETY 

INTRODUCTION

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed a

petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The Honorable William

McCurine, Jr., United States Magistrate Judge, issued two separate reports and

recommendations recommending that the instant petition, as well as petitioner’s motion

for an evidentiary hearing, be denied. Petitioner has filed objections to each of the

magistrate judge’s reports. After a careful consideration of the pleadings and relevant

exhibits submitted by the parties, and for the reasons set forth below, this Court ADOPTS

the magistrate judge’s recommendations in toto, OVERRULES petitioner’s objections;

DENIES petitioner’s motion for an evidentiary hearing, and DENIES the petition for writ

of habeas corpus in its entirety.

//

Case 3:06-cv-01545-JAH-WMC Document 74 Filed 09/24/09 Page 1 of 16
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1 A detailed statement of facts taken verbatim from the state court’s unpublished opinion affirming

petitioner’s conviction on direct review was presented by the magistrate judge in both reports. See Docs.

# 50 at 4-5; 71 at 2-3. As required on federal habeas review, the factual findings made by the state appellate

court are presumed correct and are to be given great deference. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a)(1); Sumner v. Mata,

449 U.S. 539, 545-47 (1981). Petitioner does not object to the factual findings as presented by the

magistrate judge. See Docs. # 58, 73. Therefore, this Court adopts those factual findings in full and presents

only a general summary of the facts and procedural history here.

2 The jury also found petitioner not guilty on one count of transportation of more than 28.5 grams

of marijuana, a charge that stemmed from the fact that 284 grams of marijuana were found in a backpack

located in the trailer of the truck petitioner was driving at the time of his arrest on the robbery charge.

2 06cv1545

BACKGROUND1

After waiving his right to jury trial on his prior convictions, petitioner was convicted

on March 20, 2003, after a jury trial, of one count of second degree robbery stemming

from an altercation that occurred between petitioner, a companion and two Walmart

employees outside a Walmart store in San Diego after petitioner and a companion were

seen placing an item in petitioner’s pocket in the store and leaving without paying for it.2

On March 24, 2003, petitioner waived his right to a court trial on the prior convictions

and admitted he had suffered prior felony convictions, prison priors, serious felony prior

convictions, an a strike prior conviction. On October 3, 2003, petitioner was sentenced

to a fifteen year prison term. 

That same day, petitioner filed an appeal of his conviction and concurrently filed

a petition for writ of habeas corpus before the California Court of Appeal. The appeal was

affirmed and the state petition was denied in an unpublished decision filed on

February 18, 2005. Petitioner then filed a petition for review before the California

Supreme Court, which was denied on May 11, 2005. 

Petitioner filed his first federal habeas petition on July 18, 2005, but that petition

was dismissed without prejudice on November 28, 2005, in order to allow petitioner the

opportunity to exhaust new claims. See Case No. 05CV1449 LAB(NLS). On July 31,

2006, petitioner filed his second federal habeas petition before this Court, which

contained both exhausted and unexhausted claims. The petition was stayed so that

petitioner could present his unexhausted claims to the state court. 

Case 3:06-cv-01545-JAH-WMC Document 74 Filed 09/24/09 Page 2 of 16
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 The amended petition was initially filed separately and given a new case number but was later

incorporated into this case and construed as an amended petition. See Doc. # 27. 

3 06cv1545

Petitioner, on April 12, 2007, filed an amended petition for writ of habeas corpus3

along with a second motion seeking a stay of proceedings pending the outcome of a state

court petition containing two new claims presented in his amended petition. This Court,

on August 20, 2007, granted petitioner’s second motion and stayed the petition until the

state court issued its ruling on the petition on October 31, 2007. 

After the petition was fully briefed, the magistrate judge issued a report and

recommendation on May 16, 2008, recommending the petition be denied in its entirety.

On June 23, 2008, petitioner filed objections to the May 16, 2008, indicating, among

other things, that one of the claims presented in the petition, a false evidence claim, was

not addressed in the answer filed by respondent nor the magistrate judge’s report. See

Doc. # 58. In addition, on July 9, 2008, petitioner filed a supplemental response to the

report containing further objections to the magistrate judge’s findings and conclusions.

See Doc. # 61. On December 1, 2008, this Court, in an abundance of caution, remanded

the matter back to the magistrate judge to address the omitted false evidence claim. See

Doc. # 62. After the parties filed supplemental briefs addressing the false evidence claim,

the magistrate judge issued a supplemental report, on March 16, 2009, recommending

that the false evidence claim, presented as part of claim eleven in the amended petition

and presented more fully in a supplemental document submitted by petitioner on remand,

as well as the previously addressed claims presented in the petition and the amended

petition be denied. See Doc. # 71. Petitioner filed objections to the magistrate judge’s

supplemental report on April 16, 2009. No reply to the objections has been filed.

//

//

//

//

//

Case 3:06-cv-01545-JAH-WMC Document 74 Filed 09/24/09 Page 3 of 16
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 06cv1545

DISCUSSION

1. Legal Standard.

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

recommendation is set forth in Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). Under

this statute, the district court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the

report . . . to which objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, modify, in whole or in

part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate [judge].” Id. It is wellsettled, under Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that a district court may

adopt those parts of a magistrate judge’s report to which no specific objection is made,

provided they are not clearly erroneous. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 153 (1985). 

2. Analysis

Petitioner presents eighteen claims for habeas relief in his petition, amended

petition and supplement to his amended petition. The claims can be placed into five

categories: (1) jury issues (claims one, two, three and twelve); (2) sentencing errors (claims

seven, eight, nine, and ten); (3) ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel (claims

six, eleven, thirteen, fourteen, fifteen, sixteen, and seventeen); (4) the newly addressed

false evidence claim (claim eighteen); and (5) claims that are not cognizable on federal

habeas review (claims four and five). In both reports, the magistrate judge addressed each

claim in depth and concluded that none of petitioner’s claims had merit. Petitioner, in his

objections and supplemental objections, presents both specific and general objections to

the magistrate judge’s findings and conclusions. 

1. Jury Issues 

Petitioner’s claims one, two, three and twelve allege the trial court erred by (a)

denying petitioner a further hearing regarding possible juror misconduct and coercion

[claims one and twelve]; (b) instructing the jury with a misleading definition of the term

“force” [claim two]; and (b) failing to give an instruction to the jury on the lesser included

offense of petty theft [claim three]. 

//

Case 3:06-cv-01545-JAH-WMC Document 74 Filed 09/24/09 Page 4 of 16
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 06cv1545

a. Claims One and Twelve

Claims one and twelve allege error in regards to Juror No. 10, who was identified

during jury deliberations as being in disagreement with the other eleven jurors on the

robbery count and sought to be excused because one of the other jurors believed she was

acting out of bias. The trial court, after questioning the jury foreman and Juror No. 10

regarding the alleged bias, allowed the deliberations to resume and the jury eventually

reached a unanimous verdict on the robbery count. Petitioner subsequently requested the

release of the jurors’ names and addresses in order to investigate the possibility of coercion

of Juror No. 10. In addition, sometime after the verdict was reached, Juror No. 10 sent

a letter to the trial court in which she claimed she had been treated cruelly during jury

deliberations, was never allowed to present her thought processes, and would never know

if she had reached a guilty verdict on the facts or simply because she “had reached a point

of ‘giving up.’” Lodgment 18, Vol. 5 at 645-46. The letter also stated that:

At the end of deliberations, one juror presented his thought process pertaining to the facts in a manner that was acceptable to me, and my analysis of the facts under the guidance of your instructions, and which would allow me to reach the same verdict as the rest of [the] jurors.” 

Id. The trial court denied petitioner’s motion, finding no evidence of misconduct based

on this statement and the trial court’s prior admonishment of Juror No. 10 to stand by her

version of the facts and not to allow herself to be intimidated or coerced. 

1. Claim One

In regards to claim one, petitioner contended, in both his petition and traverse, that

the trial court erred in denying his motion for an evidentiary hearing on the issue of

possible juror misconduct, thereby violating petitioner’s rights under the Sixth and

Fourteenth Amendments. See Doc. # 28 at 18-31; Doc. # 47-2 at 9-10. The magistrate

judge, after a review of the record, determined that the trial court’s denial of petitioner’s

motion for an evidentiary hearing was not unreasonable or contrary to clearly established

federal law and, thus, recommended the claim be denied. See Doc. # 50 at 10 (citing

Thompson v. Borg, 74 F.3d 1571, 1574 (9th Cir. 1996)(noting that in cases of alleged

Case 3:06-cv-01545-JAH-WMC Document 74 Filed 09/24/09 Page 5 of 16
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 Although petitioner objects to the magistrate judge’s citation to Tracy on grounds that the facts

in that case are not analogous to the facts here, see Doc. # 58 at 7, this Court finds that Tracy was cited not

for its factual similarity to this case but for the Ninth Circuit’s direction as to what courts must consider

when determining whether an evidentiary hearing is to be held on allegations of jury misconduct. See Doc.

# 50 at 9 (citing Tracy, 341 F.3d at 1044). Therefore, petitioner’s objection to the magistrate judge’s

citation to Tracy is OVERRULED.

6 06cv1545

juror misconduct where the trial judge “adequately cured the defect that no actual

prejudice resulted, the error is harmless and the defendant is not entitled to the writ.”).

In addition to petitioner’s general objections to the magistrate judge’s findings and

conclusions and a lengthy reiteration of the arguments he had previously presented in his

traverse to the petition, see Doc. # 58 at 3-8; Doc. # 47-2 at 9-17, petitioner specifically

objects to the factual findings presented by the magistrate judge, in that petitioner claims

that the magistrate judge “failed to consider the hold out juror [was] broken down in

tears[,] not able to even hold her head up out of her lap when she entered the courtroom

to deliver the verdict [which is] a strong indication that something was wrong ...” Id. at

5. Petitioner also specifically objects to the magistrate judge’s citations to various case

authority, contending the cases are not analogous to the facts here. See Doc. # 58 at 7-8.

This Court has conducted a careful de novo review of the factual findings and

conclusions of law presented by the magistrate judge in regards to this issue. Based on

that review, this Court finds the magistrate judge was correct in determining the trial

court’s denial of petitioner’s motion for an evidentiary hearing was not unreasonable nor

contrary to federal law. The magistrate judge correctly noted that federal law does not

require an evidentiary hearing in every case where jury misconduct is at issue, but instead

“‘must consider the content of the allegations, the seriousness of the alleged misconduct

or bias, and the credibility of the source.’” Doc. # 50 at 9 (quoting Tracy v. Palmateer,

341 F.3d 1037, 1044 (9th Cir. 2003)).4

 The magistrate judge also noted the following:

While Juror 10 may have expressed concern about the possibility of coercion by the majority, the evidence suggests Juror 10 was eventually persuaded to change her vote. When Juror 10 raised the issue with the court, she was told

by the court not to give in to pressure of the others, to stand by her beliefs, and that a hung jury was an acceptable result. ... When asked by the trial court whether she could ‘stand firm’ in her position, Juror 10 replied she

could.

Case 3:06-cv-01545-JAH-WMC Document 74 Filed 09/24/09 Page 6 of 16
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

7 06cv1545

Doc. # 50 at 9 (citing Lodgment 18, Vol. 5 at 595-96). In addition, as to petitioner’s

contention regarding the impact of Juror No. 10's letter to the court, the magistrate judge

determined that, despite Juror No. 10's averments concerning the way she perceived

herself to have been treated by her fellow jurors during deliberations, Juror No. 10

indicated clearly in her letter that she believes she had reached her verdict based on a

fellow juror’s presentation of “‘his thought process’” which, coupled with the court’s jury

instructions, allowed her “‘to reach the same verdict as the rest of [the] jurors.’” Doc.

# 50 at 10 (quoting Lodgment 18, Vol. 5 at 595-96). The magistrate judge thus

determined that, under these circumstances, an evidentiary hearing on the issue of juror

misconduct was not mandated by federal law because any error caused by the alleged

misconduct was harmless since it had been adequately cured by the trial court and no

actual prejudice appeared to have resulted. Id. (citing Thompson v. Borg, 74 F.3d 1571,

1574 (9th Cir. 1996)). 

Petitioner generally and specifically objects to this conclusion, arguing specifically

that the magistrate judge did not apply the correct standard and should have determined

whether the error was harmless through a determination of whether “the constitutional

error had substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury verdict.”

Doc. # 58 at 8. However, a review of the case authority cited, this Court finds that the

magistrate judge applied the proper standard in analyzing this issue. See Thompson, 74

F.3d at 1574 (juror misconduct is harmless error if the trial judge adequately cures the

defect and no actual prejudice results). This Court further finds the magistrate judge

provided a cogent analysis of this claim. Therefore, this Court OVERRULES petitioner’s

specific and general objections to the magistrate judge’s findings and conclusions regarding

claim one.

2. Claim Twelve

 In claim twelve, petitioner alleges the trial court coerced Juror No. 10 into casting

a guilty vote in violation of petitioner’s rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth

Amendments. See Doc. # 28-4 at 29. The magistrate judge determined that this claim

Case 3:06-cv-01545-JAH-WMC Document 74 Filed 09/24/09 Page 7 of 16
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 Petitioner numbered the pages on this document beginning with page 5 and continuing

sequentially. Thus, page number 1 is numbered as page 5, page number 2 is numbered as page 6, and so on.

8 06cv1545

was meritless based on a consideration of the totality of the circumstances. Doc. # 50

at 25-27. The magistrate judge pointed out the trial court clearly advised Juror No. 10

that she should “stand by the facts” as she found them and not capitulate to the other

jurors under duress, as well as that a hung jury was an acceptable outcome. Id. at 26. The

magistrate judge further noted that, despite petitioner’s assertions to the contrary, Juror

No. 10 did not indicate further deliberations would be fruitless but, instead, answered

affirmatively when asked if she could continue deliberating while standing by her firm

beliefs. Id. Based on these circumstances, coupled with Juror No. 10's letter indicating

her decision was made after a fellow juror explained the facts in a manner acceptable to

her, the magistrate judge determined no coercion occurred. Id. at 26-27.

Petitioner presents extensive objections to this claim. See Doc. # 61 at 7-11.5

Although petitioner appears to present specific objections to the magistrate judge’s

findings and conclusions, this Court’s careful review of the record reveals that petitioner

simply reiterates in his objections the same arguments he made previously in support of

his claim. See id.; compare Doc. # 28-4 at 29-33. As such, this Court may adopt the

magistrate judge’s findings and conclusions regarding this claim, provided they are not

clearly erroneous. Thomas, 474 U.S. at 153. This Court, after a careful review of the

record, finds that the magistrate judge presented a cogent analysis of the issue presented

in this claim. This Court agrees with the magistrate judge’s assessment of the totality of

the circumstances, in that the record does not clearly reflect coercion took place in regards

to the trial court’s interaction with Juror No. 10. Therefore, this Court finds the

magistrate judge’s findings and conclusions were not clearly erroneous as to claim twelve.

Accordingly, this Court adopts the magistrate judge’s findings and conclusions on claim

twelve and overrules petitioner’s general objections thereto. 

//

//

Case 3:06-cv-01545-JAH-WMC Document 74 Filed 09/24/09 Page 8 of 16
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

9 06cv1545

b. Claim Two

In claim two, petitioner alleges the trial court instructed the jury with a misleading

definition of the term “force” thereby violating his due process rights under the Fourteenth

Amendment. See Doc. # 28 at 39. Petitioner contends that the jury instruction given,

which stated: “Force, as used in these instructions must be intentional and must be more

than accidental contact,” was misleading, incomplete and not in compliance with state law.

Id. at 37-38. The magistrate judge first noted that the state court analyzed this claim

based solely on state law thereby rendering the claim not cognizable. Doc. # 50 at 11

(citing Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67 (1991). However, even assuming the jury

instruction used was in error under state law, the magistrate judge further determined that,

under the facts in this case, “it cannot be said that the instruction ‘so infected the entire

trial that the resulting conviction violated due process.’” Doc. # 50 at 11-12; see Estelle,

502 U.S. at 72. Petitioner does not object to these findings and conclusions. This Court

finds that the magistrate judge correctly determined petitioner’s claim is not cognizable

and, even if it were, the claim would fail based on the facts here. Accordingly, this Court

finds the magistrate judge’s determination as to this claim was not clearly erroneous and

adopts the findings and conclusions regarding this claim in full. 

c. Claim Three

In claim three, petitioner contends that the trial court erred by failing to give a jury

instruction on the lesser included offense of petty theft. See Doc. # 28 at 41. The

magistrate judge determined that this claim fails for three reasons: (1) such is not

cognizable on federal habeas review; (2) even if it were, the principles of due process were

not violated in this case because a petty theft instruction would only have been warranted

absent force used in the taking of the item; and (3) even if the failure to give the

instruction was considered error, the error was harmless. See Doc. # 50 at 12-14.

Petitioner does not object, specifically or generally, to the magistrate judge’s findings and

conclusions regarding this claim. See Docs. # 58, 61, 73. 

After a careful de novo review of the record in regards to this issue, this Court agrees

Case 3:06-cv-01545-JAH-WMC Document 74 Filed 09/24/09 Page 9 of 16
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

10 06cv1545

with the magistrate judge’s assessment. As the magistrate judge pointed out, the Ninth

Circuit has held “the failure of a state court to instruct on a lesser included offense fails

to present a federal constitutional question and will not be considered in a federal habeas

corpus proceeding.” James v. Reese, 546 F.2d 325, 327 (1976); see Doc. # 50 at 13.

Thus, the magistrate judge correctly determined that, absent a claim of due process

violation on the grounds that the failure to instruct deprived petitioner of a defense

theory, the claim is not cognizable on federal habeas review. The magistrate judge further

correctly determined that no due process violation occurred because the instruction was

not warranted under the circumstances of this case and, even it were, any error by the trial

court was harmless. Therefore, this Court adopts the magistrate judge’s findings and

conclusions regarding this claim in full. 

2. Sentencing Errors

Petitioner alleges, in claims seven, eight, nine and ten, that (a) the trial court’s

imposition of an upper term sentence based on factors not found by the jury [claim seven]

and imposition of a sentence based on prior convictions not submitted to the jury [claim

ten] violates petitioner’s rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments under

Blakeley v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004), requiring the matter to be remanded for

a new sentencing hearing [claim eight]; and (b) the trial court improperly imposed a

sentence enhancement based on a 1992 conviction for a violation of California Penal Code

§ 245(a)(1) [claim nine].

a. Claims Seven, Eight and Ten

Claims seven, eight and ten present challenges to the petitioner’s sentence based on

Blakely, 542 U.S. 296. Claims seven and eight allege the trial court imposed an upper

term sentence that runs afoul of Blakely based on the use of factors not found by a jury

The magistrate judge found these claims meritless because any error committed by the trial

court in imposing an upper term sentence was harmless. See Doc. # 50 at 17-19. Claim

ten alleges the trial court improperly based petitioner’s sentence on prior convictions that

were not submitted to a jury for consideration which the magistrate judge determined was

Case 3:06-cv-01545-JAH-WMC Document 74 Filed 09/24/09 Page 10 of 16
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

11 06cv1545

not a correct interpretation of Blakely. See id. at 21-22. Petitioner does not present

objections to the magistrate judge’s findings and conclusions concerning these claims.

After a careful review of the record, this Court finds the magistrate judge’s cogent and

thorough analyses of these claims are not clearly erroneous. Therefore this Court adopts

the magistrate judge’s findings and conclusions as to claims seven, eight and ten in their

entirety. 

b. Claim Nine

Petitioner alleges, in claim nine, that the trial court erred by improperly imposing

a sentence enhancement based on a conviction that petitioner claimed was insufficient to

constitute a serious felony. The magistrate judge determined this claim lacked merit

because the case authority belied the claim. See Doc. # 50 at 20-21. Petitioner does not

object to the magistrate judge’s findings and conclusions regarding this claim. This Court

has thoroughly reviewed the case authority cited by the magistrate judge and finds the

magistrate judge presented a cogent analysis of the issue presented in this claim.

Therefore, this Court finds the magistrate judge’s findings and conclusions as to this claim

are not clearly erroneous and, accordingly, adopts them in full. 

3. Ineffective Assistance of Trial and Appellate Counsel

In claims six, eleven, fourteen, fifteen, sixteen, and seventeen, petitioner presents

arguments concerning the effectiveness of his trial and appellate counsel. Specifically,

petitioner contends that (a) trial counsel failed to request a lesser included offense

instruction on petty theft [claims six and seventeen] and appellate counsel failed to

present a claim for ineffective assistance of trial counsel based on failure to request a lesser

included offense instruction on petty theft to the California Supreme Court [claim

sixteen]; (b) appellate counsel failed to raise an ineffective assistance of counsel claim

based on lack of a proper investigation [claim eleven]; (c) appellate counsel failed to raise

a jury coercion claim [claim thirteen]; and (d) appellate counsel failed to raise a claim on

appeal concerning the improper introduction at trial of an automobile gauge [claims

fourteen and fifteen].

Case 3:06-cv-01545-JAH-WMC Document 74 Filed 09/24/09 Page 11 of 16
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

12 06cv1545

a. Claims Six, Sixteen and Seventeen

Claims six, sixteen and seventeen all turn on the issue of whether petitioner’s trial

counsel was ineffective by failing to request a jury instruction on the lesser included

offense of petty theft. The magistrate judge determined that counsel’s failure did not

prejudice petitioner and, thus, counsel was not ineffective under the guidelines set forth

in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 688 (1984). See Doc. # 50 at 15-17, 29-30.

Petitioner does not object to the magistrate judge’s determination regarding this issue.

Therefore, based on this Court’s review of the record regarding these claims, this Court

finds the magistrate judge’s findings and conclusions as to claims six, sixteen and

seventeen are not clearly erroneous, in that the magistrate judge presented a cogent and

thorough analysis of these claims. Accordingly, this Court adopts the magistrate judge’s

findings and conclusions regarding claims six, sixteen and seventeen in full. 

b. Claim Eleven

Petitioner alleges, in claim eleven, that his trial counsel was ineffective because he

failed to conduct a proper investigation. The magistrate judge found this claim meritless

for two reasons: (1) because petitioner failed to meet his heavy burden of demonstrating

counsel’s performance was deficient; and (2) because no prejudice had been shown. See

Doc. # 50 at 22-24. Petitioner specifically objects to the magistrate judge’s findings and

conclusions, contending that he presented sufficient evidence, in the form of a declaration,

demonstrating counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.

See Doc. # 61 at 6. However, petitioner does not present objections to the magistrate

judge’s determination that no prejudice had been shown but for counsel’s alleged deficient

performance. This Court has thoroughly reviewed the record and finds that the magistrate

judge correctly found the alleged negligent investigation would not have had an effect on

the outcome of the trial based on the fact that further investigation into the witnesses and

evidence petitioner points to would not have aided in petitioner’s defense. See Doc. # 50

at 22-23. Thus, even if petitioner prevailed on his theory of deficient performance,

petitioner could not meet the second prong of Strickland by demonstrating but for

Case 3:06-cv-01545-JAH-WMC Document 74 Filed 09/24/09 Page 12 of 16
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

13 06cv1545

counsel’s deficient performance, the outcome of the trial would have been different. See

Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689. Accordingly, this Court overrules petitioner’s specific and

general objections to the magistrate judge’s findings and conclusions regarding this claim

and adopts the magistrate judge’s determination in full.

c. Claim Thirteen

Petitioner alleges, in claim thirteen, that his appellate counsel was ineffective for

failing to raise a jury coercion claim on appeal. The magistrate judge found that

petitioner’s jury coercion claim lacked merit, in that petitioner failed to show he was

prejudiced by appellate counsel’s failure to raise the issue on appeal. See Doc. # 50 at 27.

No objection to this finding having been presented by petitioner, this Court agrees with

the magistrate judge and finds this claim lacks merit. Therefore, this Court adopts the

magistrate judge’s findings and conclusions as to this claim.

d. Claims Fourteen and Fifteen

 Claims fourteen and fifteen allege that trial counsel and appellate counsel were each

ineffective because they did not raise, at trial or on appeal, a challenge to the prosecutor’s

inference regarding an automobile gauge that was impounded two days after petitioner was

arrested. Petitioner claims that the prosecutor improperly inferred the impounded gauge

was the gauge petitioner was accused of stealing when the impounded gauge was actually

not found in petitioner’s truck or in his possession. The magistrate judge noted that the

testimony presented at trial was inconsistent with petitioner’s assessment of the evidence,

in that there was no testimony regarding an impounded gauge. See Doc. # 50 at 28-29.

The magistrate judge pointed out that the detective whose testimony petitioner claims led

to an improper inference by the prosecution actually testified that the box for the gauge

was the item impounded, not the gauge itself. See id. Therefore, based on this testimony,

the magistrate concluded that there was no basis for petitioner’s ineffective assistance of

counsel arguments presented in claims fourteen and fifteen. Id. at 29. 

//

//

Case 3:06-cv-01545-JAH-WMC Document 74 Filed 09/24/09 Page 13 of 16
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

14 06cv1545

Petitioner presents objections to the magistrate judge’s conclusion regarding these

claims. See Doc. # 61 at 12-13. However, the objections raised by petitioner in regards

to these two claims appear to be directed at the magistrate judge’s findings and

conclusions as to petitioner’s claim alleging that false evidence was presented at trial and

not directed at the magistrate judge’s findings and conclusions as to trial and appellate

counsel’s alleged failure to challenge the prosecutor’s inference regarding the evidence. See

id. at 13. Thus, no specific objections has been raised as to these two claims. This

Court’s review of the record reveals that the magistrate judge’s findings and conclusions

as to claims fourteen and fifteen are not clearly erroneous, in that the magistrate judge

correctly concluded, based on the record presented, that there was no basis for petitioner’s

claims. Therefore, this Court adopts the magistrate judge’s findings and conclusions

regarding claims fourteen and fifteen in full.

4. False Evidence Claim (Claim Eighteen)

Although petitioner did not fully allege a separate false evidence claim in his

petition or amended petition, after a careful review of the record in this case, this Court

deemed it appropriate to allow petitioner the opportunity to present the claim fully in

subsequent pleadings. See Doc. # 62. Petitioner provided ample discussion of this issue

in supplemental pleadings, see Docs. # 64, 66, and respondent addressed the issue in a

response to petitioner’s supplemental pleadings. See Doc. # 68. Petitioner’s false

evidence claim alleges that petitioner’s rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to due

process were violated because two pieces of evidence, in the form of impound

documentation for an empty gauge box and a photograph of the empty gauge box, were

falsified. See Doc. # 64 at 9-10, 12-13. The magistrate judge, in a supplemental report

and recommendation, determined that petitioner had failed to meet his burden of

presenting competent evidence to support his claim that the evidence was falsified. Doc.

# 71 at 10-11. In addition, the magistrate judge determined that petitioner was not

entitled to an evidentiary hearing because he had only presented bare conclusory

allegations regarding the alleged falsification of evidence that does not merit an evidentiary

Case 3:06-cv-01545-JAH-WMC Document 74 Filed 09/24/09 Page 14 of 16
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

15 06cv1545

hearing. Id. at 12 (citing Phillips v. Woodford, 267 F.3d 966, 973 (9th Cir. 2001)). 

Petitioner presents a lengthy discussion of this claim in his objections to the

magistrate judge’s supplemental report and recommendation. See Doc. # 73. This Court’s

thorough review of petitioner’s objections reveals that petitioner does not specifically

object to any particular portion of the magistrate judge’s findings and conclusions in

regards to this claim. Instead, petitioner merely generally objects to the ultimate

conclusion that his claim lacks merit and that he does not meet the criteria meriting an

evidentiary hearing on the issue. See id. Based on this lack of specificity, this Court need

only determine whether the magistrate judge’s findings and conclusions are clearly

erroneous. See Thomas, 474 U.S. at 153. This Court’s review of the record reveals the

magistrate judge provided a thorough and cogent analysis of this claim. This Court agrees

with the magistrate judge’s determination that petitioner has not sufficiently met his

burden of demonstrating the evidence was falsified and that petitioner failed to show he

is entitled to an evidentiary hearing due to his conclusory assertions regarding the alleged

false evidence. Therefore, this Court overrules petitioner’s general objections to the

magistrate judge’s findings and conclusions and adopts the findings and conclusions

presented by the magistrate judge concerning this claim in full.

5. Not Cognizable Claims

Claim four alleges trial court error in sentencing based on an alleged misapplication

of state law. Doc. # 28 at 59-65. Claim five appears to be a request to consolidate his

state habeas petition with his appeal before the state appellate court. See Doc. # 28-2 at

3. The magistrate judge found both of these claims were not cognizable on federal habeas

review. See Doc. # 50 at 15. Petitioner raises no objections to this finding. This Court

agrees with the magistrate judge’s assessment concerning these claims, in that, there can

be no question that these two claims are not cognizable on federal habeas review.

Accordingly, this Court adopts the magistrate judge’s findings and conclusions as to claims

four and five in full.

Case 3:06-cv-01545-JAH-WMC Document 74 Filed 09/24/09 Page 15 of 16
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

16 06cv1545

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

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

1. The findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge presented in both

reports [docs. # 50, 71] are ADOPTED in full;

2. Petitioner’s objections to the reports [docs. # 58, 61, 73] are

OVERRULED;

3. Petitioner’s motion for an evidentiary hearing is DENIED; and. 

4. The instant petition for writ of habeas corpus is DENIED in its entirety. 

DATED: September 23, 2009

JOHN A. HOUSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-01545-JAH-WMC Document 74 Filed 09/24/09 Page 16 of 16