Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01708/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01708-3/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 – 12-cv-1708 BAS (BLM)

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

RUBEN TRONCOSO,

Petitioner,

Case No. 12-cv-1708 BAS (BLM)

ORDER: 

(1) ADOPTING REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION; 

AND

(2) DENYING PETITIONER’S 

HABEAS RELIEF

v.

DAVID LONG, Warden,

Respondent.

On June 28, 2012, Petitioner Ruben Troncoso, a state prisoner, filed 

this Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus seeking 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas relief 

from his December 17, 2007 conviction and sentence for cocaine sale, 

transportation, and distribution. The court denied Respondent’s motion to dismiss 

and held Respondent to answer. On April 30, 2014, United States Magistrate 

Judge William V. Gallo. issued a Report and Recommendation (“Report”) 

recommending that this Court deny the Petition. Petitioner filed objections to the 

Report. 

For the following reasons, the Court ADOPTS the Report in its entirety 

Case 3:12-cv-01708-BAS-WVG Document 35 Filed 06/30/14 Page 1 of 4
– 2 – 12-cv-1708 BAS (BLM)

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

(Doc. 32), OVERRULES Petitioner’s objections (Doc. 33), and DENIES the 

petition with prejudice (Doc. 1).

I. LEGAL STANDARD

A district court’s duties concerning a magistrate judge’s report and 

recommendation and a party’s objections thereto are set forth in Rule 72(b) of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When no 

objections are filed, the district court is not required to review the magistrate 

judge’s report and recommendation. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 

1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (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”) (emphasis in 

original).

In contrast, the duties of a district court in connection with a magistrate 

judge’s report and recommendation are quite different when an objection has been 

filed. These duties are set forth in Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure and in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Specifically, 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)(c); see also 

United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 676 (1980); United States v. Remsing, 874 

F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). 

II. ANALYSIS

On December 17, 2007 Petitioner was convicted of six counts relating to the 

transportation and sale of cocaine. Doc. 1. Petitioner presents one ground for 

habeas relief, that his appellate counsel failed to provide effective assistance 

because counsel did not raise a federal due process challenge to a weightCase 3:12-cv-01708-BAS-WVG Document 35 Filed 06/30/14 Page 2 of 4
– 3 – 12-cv-1708 BAS (BLM)

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

enhancement jury instruction under California Health and Safety Code section 

11370.4(a) based on the absence of a knowledge requirement. Doc. 1, 23:9–18. 

Respondent filed an answer opposing habeas relief contending that Petitioner’s 

habeas claims fail on the merits. Doc. 29. Thereafter, Petitioner filed a traverse. 

Doc. 31.

Judge Gallo issued the Report and recommended that the petition be denied. 

Doc. 32. Petitioner objects to the recommendations in the Report. Doc. 33.

A. Petitioner Has Not Demonstrated Prejudice as Necessary to 

Challenge a Conviction for Ineffective Assistance of Counsel.

The Sixth Amendment guarantees defendants a right to effective assistance 

of counsel. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 686 (1984). “The 

benchmark for judging any claim of ineffectiveness must be whether counsel’s 

conduct so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the 

trial cannot be relied on as having produced a just result.” Id. To constitute 

ineffective assistance, counsel’s representation must fall below an objective 

standard of reasonableness. Id. at 688. To challenge a conviction, a defendant 

must affirmatively prove prejudice by showing a reasonable probability that, 

absent errors, the factfinder would have had a reasonable doubt respecting guilt. 

See id. at 693–95. This same standard has been extended to challenges to 

counsel’s effectiveness in the appellate context. Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259, 

285 (2000).

Petitioner objects to Judge Gallo’s finding that Petitioner has failed to show 

that his counsel’s failure to raise a federal due process challenge to a weightenhancement jury instruction constitutes prejudicial error sufficient to challenge 

his conviction. This Court reviews the claim de novo ̧ finding that Petitioner was 

not prejudiced by his counsel’s failure because precedent shows that knowledge of 

the specific weight of the contraband is not Constitutionally required. See People 

v. Meza, 38 Cal.App.4th 1741 (1995); U.S. v. Klein, 860 F.2d 1489 (9th Cir. 1988).

Case 3:12-cv-01708-BAS-WVG Document 35 Filed 06/30/14 Page 3 of 4
– 4 – 12-cv-1708 BAS (BLM)

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 Ninth Circuit has clearly decided that there is “no merit” to the 

argument that the government must prove knowledge of the amount of contraband 

after already proving criminal intent to distribute the controlled substance. U.S. v. 

Klein, 860 F.2d at 1494. The California courts have adopted this reasoning and 

applied it to section 11370.4. People v. Meza, 38 Cal.App.4th at 1747–1748. In 

the face of clear precedent, it is exceedingly improbable that Petitioner was in any 

way prejudiced by his counsel’s failure to address the issue on appeal. 

Accordingly, Petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief for ineffective assistance of 

counsel.

III. CONCLUSION & ORDER

After considering Petitioner’s objections and conducting a de novo review, 

the Court concludes that Judge Gallo’s reasoning in the Report is sound. In light 

of the foregoing, the Court ADOPTS the Report in its entirety (Doc. 32), 

OVERRULES Petitioner’s objections, and DENIES this habeas petition with 

prejudice in its entirety (Doc. 1).

Moreover, because reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s assessment 

of the claims debatable or wrong, the Court DENIES a certificate of appealability. 

See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 30, 2014

Case 3:12-cv-01708-BAS-WVG Document 35 Filed 06/30/14 Page 4 of 4