Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00397/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00397-4/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 - 07cv397-LAB (NLS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CALHOUN E. CHARLES,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 07cv397-LAB (NLS)

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE

vs. OF APPEALABILITY

ROY A. CASTRO,

Respondent.

On March 2, 2007, Petitioner filed a petition in this Court seeking a writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He argued the evidence presented at his trial in state

court was insufficient to support a conviction, the state court improperly admitted evidence

of prior crimes, and the state court improperly sentenced him to consecutive terms.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Civil Local Rule 72.1, this matter was referred to Magistrate

Judge Nita Stormes for report and recommendation.

Respondent filed an answer on June 4, 2007. Although Petitioner was ordered to file

a traverse, he never did so. On December 7, 2007, Judge Stormes issued her report and

recommendation (the “R&R”), discussing in detail the evidence presented at trial, and

recommending denial of the writ. The parties were given an opportunity to file objections to

the R&R.

Petitioner then filed a series of objections, which were all accepted for filing, including

a late-filed traverse. Petitioner did not seek leave to supplement these further, nor did he

Case 3:07-cv-00397-LAB-NLS Document 23 Filed 06/18/09 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 - 07cv397-LAB (NLS)

seek any additional time in which to do so. The Court construed all Petitioner’s filings as his

objections to the R&R, considered them, overruled all objections, adopted the R&R, and on

April 23, 2009, issued an order denying the writ.

Petitioner then filed a document styled “Order Adopting Report and

Recommendation,” (the “NOA”) which the Court construes as a notice of appeal and request

for certificate of appealability. To this, he attached a number of his medical records.

I. Legal Standards

A certificate of appealability (“COA”) 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 standard, Petitioner must show that: (1) the issues are debatable among jurists of

reason; or (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) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000), and

Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880 (1983)). Petitioner does not have to show "that he should

prevail on the merits. He has already failed in that endeavor." Lambright, 220 F.3d at 1025

(citing Barefoot, 463 U.S. at 893 n.4).

II. Discussion

A. Issues Raised

In the NOA, Petitioner appears to be raising either two or three issues. First, he says

his medical problems prevent him from thinking clearly. The Court construes this as an

argument that he should have been granted more time in which to object to the R&R.

Second, he raises the question of the sufficiency of the evidence. Third, he raises what

might either be part of his sufficiency of the evidence argument or a new argument he has

not raised before. Finally, he moved for appointment of counsel. The Court considers each

of these issues in turn.

B. Petitioner’s Medical Problems

According to the medical records Petitioner attached to the NOA, the altercation in

late July, 2007 resulted in injury to Petitioner’s back, elbow, and head, including contusions

Case 3:07-cv-00397-LAB-NLS Document 23 Filed 06/18/09 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 - 07cv397-LAB (NLS)

and resultant back pain. He was prescribed Motrin. Recommended treatment for the

contusions was rest and elevation of the affected areas, ice packs, and compression

bandages. In the fall of 2006, Petitioner had a hematoma excised from his forehead, and

as late as the fall of 2008, he suffered from dermatitis. The attached records disclose no

other medical problems.

In his first objections to the R&R, filed nunc pro tunc to December 26, 2007 (docket

no. 11), Petitioner said he had been unable to prepare adequate objections to the R&R

because he was being held in administrative segregation without access to the prison library

or his legal papers. He did not mention any health problems. Among the supporting

materials, Petitioner attached records of an administrative hearing on November 16, 2008,

where he first stated he was in good health and ready to proceed with the hearing. (Docket

no. 11 at page 7.)

Petitioner then submitted an ex parte application, which was filed nunc pro tunc to

January 2, 2009, in which he sought an extension of time to file objections. The Court

construed this as seeking additional time to supplement his objections. In his application,

Petitioner cited denial of access to the prison library as well as an administrative complaint

he was pursuing against staff members, apparently in connection with the July, 2007

incident. Although he complained of having been beaten and sexually harassed during that

incident, he did not mention any ongoing health problems.

Petitioner now claims in the NOA that he is still suffering from a concussion as a result

of the incident in July, 2007, that he is on an unspecified medication, and that he is therefore

unable to focus on his legal work. The records Petitioner has submitted do not corroborate

any of these claims, however. In addition, the Court granted Petitioner all the time he

requested to file pleadings, and accepted and considered all pleadings he submitted. No

COA is appropriate on this issue.

C. Sufficiency of the Evidence

The standard of review for a sufficiency of the evidence claim is whether, "after

viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact

Case 3:07-cv-00397-LAB-NLS Document 23 Filed 06/18/09 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 - 07cv397-LAB (NLS)

could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." Jackson

v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979). The Court does not "ask itself whether it believes the

evidence at the trial established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt," id. at 318–19, but

whether a rational trier of fact could have done so.

The case against Petitioner is laid out in detail in the R&R, which thoroughly analyzes

the evidence. (R&R at 3:2–10:14 and nn.12–13, 11:25–13:26.) As set forth in the Court’s

order denying the writ, Petitioner made only a conclusory argument regarding the sufficiency

of the evidence. In the NOA, Petitioner does the same, arguing “somehow the courts got

it wrong” and did not understand his argument, and claiming “there was no evidence to link

Mr. Calhoun to these crimes . . . .” 

Petitioner also summarily appeals to the report of officer Ronald Knuth, who

conducted surveillance of a stolen truck connected with the robberies with which Petitioner

was charged; Petitioner’s argument here is that Officer Knuth’s testimony does not link him

to the robberies, and he directs the Court “See his report.” The only attachment that appears

to meet this description is a transcript of Officer Knuth’s testimony, attached as Exhibit 1.

The testimony tends to identify Petitioner as having driven two trucks connected by physical

evidence with several robberies, with his co-defendant as his passenger. Though not as

definite as it might be, any discrepancies or uncertainties in the testimony are insufficient to

show that no rational trier of fact could have convicted Petitioner, particularly because he has

failed to account for the remaining evidence against him.

The Court concludes the standard for issuance of a COA on this issue is not met.

D. Objections Regarding Evidence Sheets

Petitioner also includes a new argument as follows:

Based on the evidence sheets and exhibit that was giving to the jury this

alone violated Mr. Calhoun rights to a fair trial based on the evidence sheets

alone these evidences are not Mr. Calhoun evidences therefore by Mr.

Calhoun name on these exhibit sheets that was giving to jury by the courts

which is wrong. 

Apparently in support of this, he attaches as exhibits 2 and 3 to the NOA the exhibit

lists from his trial. Petitioner did not raise this issue in his petition, however, and this is the

Case 3:07-cv-00397-LAB-NLS Document 23 Filed 06/18/09 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 - 07cv397-LAB (NLS)

first time he has presented this claim to this Court. Even if the Court had had the opportunity

to consider this argument, however, and even if it had been exhausted in state court, the writ

would still have been denied on the merits. Assuming this is a separate issue and not part

of Petitioner’s sufficiency of the evidence argument, the Court finds the standard for

issuance of a COA is not met as to this issue.

III. Conclusion and Order

For the reasons set forth above, the COA is DENIED. Because judgment has been

entered and there are no further proceedings, Petitioner’s request for appointment of

counsel is DENIED AS MOOT.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 17, 2009

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00397-LAB-NLS Document 23 Filed 06/18/09 Page 5 of 5