Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00274/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00274-0/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 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

10 

11 LABRONE CARLOS HARRIS, 

12 Petitioner, 

13 v. 

14 DIRECTOR OF CORRECTIONS, 

15 

16 

17 

INTRODUCTION 

Respondent. 

Case No.: 18cv0274 MMA (RBM) 

(1) REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION RE DENIAL 

OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF 

HABEAS CORPUS; AND 

(2) ORDER DENYING REQUEST 

FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING. 

18 I. 

19 Petitioner Labrone Carlos Harris ("Petitioner" or "Harris"), a state prisoner 

20 proceeding pro se, has filed a First Amended Petition ("Petition") for Writ of Habeas 

21 Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his San Diego Superior Court 

22 conviction in case number SCD 262893. (Am. Pet. at 1, ECF No. 4.)1 In the Petition, 

23 Harris also requests an evidentiary hearing. (Id. at 7.) The Court has reviewed the 

24 Petition, the Answer and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of the 

25 Answer, the lodgments, and all the supporting documents submitted by both parties. For 

26 

27 1 Page numbers for docketed materials cited in this Report and Recommendation refer to those 

28 imprinted by the court's electronic case filing system. 

18cv0274 MMA (RBM) 

Case 3:18-cv-00274-MMA-RBM Document 12 Filed 12/04/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 18
1 the reasons discussed below, the Court DENIES the request for evidentiary hearing and 

2 RECOMMENDS the Petition be DENIED. 

3 II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 

4 This Court gives deference to state court findings of fact and presumes them to be 

5 correct; Petitioner may rebut the presumption of correctness, but only by clear and 

6 convincing evidence. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(l) (West 2006); see also Parke v. Raley, 

7 506 U.S. 20, 35-36 (1992) (holding findings of historical fact, including inferences 

8 properly drawn from those facts, are entitled to statutory presumption of correctness). 

9 The following facts are taken from the California Court of Appeal opinion: 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Harris and his wife, C.R.H., lived in an apartment on Alvarado 

Road in San Diego (Alvarado apartments). On June 26, 2015, C.R.H. and 

Harris were in the parking lot of their building when Harris hit C.R.H. in 

the face. C.R.H. suffered fractures near the eye socket and the left wall of 

her maxillary sinus. She bled profusely from a cut over her left eyebrow. 

Her cheekbone was bruised and swollen. Harris was arrested and jailed 

pending trial. 

On July 7, 2015, Harris telephoned C.R.H. from jail using another 

inmate's PIN code (July 7 conversation). They talked about various 

topics, including Harris' arrest for a probation violation. C.R.H. 

recounted a conversation she had with Harris' sister. C.R.H. said she told 

her sister-in-law, "These charges are BS. It's not like I'm going to go and 

say that again, obviously." Harris asked if C.R.H. had noticed he had 

used someone else's name. He asked her what she was going to do or say 

and told her, "You need to call, like, and change your story." Harris said 

they could "get this dropped." C.R.H. said she was aware of that. 

The trial took place over six days in November 2015. A resident of 

the Alvarado apartments (resident) testified that at approximately 1 :00 

p.m. on June 26, 2015, he and his girlfriend (girlfriend) were in the 

parking lot of the complex. Just as he was getting into his car, he saw a 

lady (C.R.H.) [footnote omitted] and the defendant talking. When C.R.H. 

handed the defendant a piece of paper, he hit her. The resident said, "[I]t 

was like a man hitting another man. It was a little scary." The defendant 

got into his car and drove off. 

2 

18cv0274 MMA (RBM) 

Case 3:18-cv-00274-MMA-RBM Document 12 Filed 12/04/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 18
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 resident and his girlfriend went over to C.R.H., who was 

yelling, "Help me, help me." C.R.H. was on the ground. She was holding 

her head and bleeding from her eye. C.R.H. said the man who hit her was 

her husband. Someone telephoned 9 11. 

The girlfriend testified she and the resident were walking to their 

car. She heard a sound and saw a man leave the scene. C.R.H. was on the 

ground, screaming, crying and bleeding. She was frantic. There was 

blood gushing from her face down her shirt. The girlfriend heard C.R.H. 

identify her husband as the assailant. 

A police officer responded to the 911 call at approximately 1 :20 

p.m. He was directed to go to Alvarado Hospital. When he arrived, 

C.R.H. was fearful and crying. She said her husband hit her in the face 

with his right fist. C.R.H. recounted an argument she and Harris had the 

night before he hit her. Harris saw a text on C.R.H. 's cell phone he 

believed was from another man. Harris became "enraged with anger" and 

left the apartment. When C.R.H. picked him up the next morning, Harris 

was verbally abusive and slapped her in the back of her head. He 

threatened to "knock her the fuck out" and said he was going to "knock 

her out" when they got home. C.R.H. stopped at a Denny's and ran out of 

the car. Harris threw a water bottle at her and hit her in the leg. Harris 

left on foot and C.R.H. drove home. He telephoned and said he was 

outside the apartment and wanted his clothes. C.R.H. packed his clothes 

and gave them to him. Harris said he could not leave without his court 

documents, which were in the trunk of C.R.H.'s car. They went to her 

car. She retrieved the documents and handed them to him. Harris drew 

back his right arm and hit C.R.H. in the face. 

An emergency room nurse testified C.R.H. had a large cut to her 

left eyebrow. C.R.H. said her husband hit her in the face and knocked her 

out. 

C.R.H. testified that shortly after midnight on June 26, 2015, she 

received a text message from a girlfriend. C.R.H. made plans to hang out 

with her girlfriend and a male friend. Harris became upset and left the 

apartment at approximately 1 :00 a.m. When she picked him up the next 

morning, Harris was intoxicated and upset. He told C.R.H. he wanted to 

pack his things and leave. C.R.H. said she became angry. She pulled into 

a parking lot at Denny's. Harris walked away while she was yelling at 

him. 

3 

18cv0274 MMA (RBM) 

Case 3:18-cv-00274-MMA-RBM Document 12 Filed 12/04/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 18
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 

C.R.H. testified she drove home to lock Harris out of the house. He 

telephoned her and said he wanted his clothes. C.R.H. packed his clothes 

and gave them to him. Harris said he needed another basket of clothes 

and his papers from her car. She met him in the parking lot and gave him 

a basket of clothes with his papers on top of it. C.R.H. grabbed his arm 

and asked him not to leave. She hit him in the face. He turned away and 

she hit him four to five times in the back of his head. Harris used the 

laundry basket to push her away and she fell to the ground. C.R.H. was 

crying and bleeding. C.R.H. telephoned 911 and told the dispatcher that 

she and her husband were fighting and he hit her. 

The prosecution played the 911 recordings for the jury. C.R.H. told 

the dispatcher, "[M]y husband just beat the shit out of me. I'm gushing 

blood, please come help me. [irJ ... [,-r] He punched me, I'm bleeding 

everywhere." C.R.H. said her sister-in-law was driving her to the 

hospital. 

On cross-examination, C.R.H. testified she told the dispatcher that 

Harris had hit her because she wanted to get him in trouble. He was 

driving another girl's car. Harris never punched her. The incident was 

her fault. C.R.H. denied that Harris ever told her what to say or asked her 

to change her story. 

The prosecution played a portion of the July 7 conversation 

between C.R.H. and Harris. [Footnote omitted.] C.R.H. acknowledged 

the transcript of the conversation showed that Harris had asked her to 

change her story. She testified she did not change anything. C.R.H. said 

she had had other conversations with Harris in which she told him she 

was going to come to court and tell the truth, and she did tell the truth. 

The jury found the defendant guilty of the crimes of corporeal 

injury to a spouse and assault by means likely to produce great bodily 

injury. The jury sustained allegations of great bodily injury on each 

count. At defendant's sentencing hearing, C.R.H. asked the court not to 

give Harris a long prison term, saying he needed help with his alcoholism. 

She told the court, "He really does mess up things when he's under the 

influence of anything." C.R.H. said the defendant's actions had 

traumatized her and ruined her life. 

27 (Lodgment No. 11, ECF No. 10-11 at 2-6.) 

28 I I I 

4 

18cv0274 MMA (RBM) 

Case 3:18-cv-00274-MMA-RBM Document 12 Filed 12/04/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 18
1 III. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 

2 On August 4, 2015, the San Diego District Attorney filed a complaint charging 

3 Harris with corporal injury to a spouse (Cal. Penal Code § 273.5(a)) and assault by means 

4 likely to produce great bodily injury (Cal. Penal Code§ 245(a)(4)). (Lodgment No. 1, 

5 ECF No. 10-1 at 5.) It was further alleged that Harris inflicted great bodily injury (Cal 

6 Penal Code§ 12022.7(e)) as to both counts. (Lodgment No. 1, ECF No. 10-1 at 6.) It 

7 was also alleged that Harris had suffered a serious prior felony (Cal. Penal Code§ 

8 667(a)(l), 668 and 1192.7(c)) and a strike prior (Cal. Penal Code§ 667(b)-(i), 668, 

9 1170.12). (Lodgment No. 1, ECF No. 10-1 at 5-8.) 

10 On November 23, 2015, a jury found Petitioner guilty of both counts. The jury 

11 further made true findings that Harris inflicted great bodily injury as to both counts. (Id. 

12 at 155, 159, 161; see also Lodgment No. 4, ECF No. 10-4 at 492-93.) Harris admitted 

13 the truth of the prior conviction allegations. (Lodgment No. 1, ECF No. 10-1 at 158.) On 

14 February 5, 2016, the trial court sentenced Harris to 13 years in prison.2 (Lodgment No. 

15 1, ECF No. 10-1 at 163; see also Lodgment No. 6, ECF No. 10-6 at 41.) 

16 Petitioner appealed his conviction to the California Court of Appeal. (See 

17 Lodgment No. 8, ECF No. 10-8.) He argued his due process rights were violated when 

18 the trial court precluded the defense from admitting a portion of a recorded jailhouse 

19 phone call between Harris and C.R.H. (See id. at 34-7.) On June 27, 2017, the appellate 

20 court affirmed Harris's conviction in an unpublished opinion. (Lodgment No. 11, ECF 

21 No. I 0-11.) The court concluded that Harris had failed to "produce an adequate record to 

22 demonstrate trial court error" because the unredacted transcript of the phone conversation 

23 was not part of the appellate record. (Id. at 8.) The court further concluded that even 

24 assuming there was error, it was harmless. (Id. at 9-10.) 

25 

26 2 The trial court sentenced Harris to the middle term of four years on count one, doubled to eight years 

27 due to the strike prior, plus a consecutive term of five years for the serious felony prior. The court 

struck the punishment for the great bodily injury enhancements pursuant to California Penal Code 

28 section 1385 and stayed the sentence on count two pursuant to California Penal Code section 654 . 

(Lodgment No. 1, ECF No. 10-1at163-64 ; see also Lodgment No. 6, ECF No. 10-6 at 39-41.) 

5 

18cv0274 I:v1MA (RBM) 

Case 3:18-cv-00274-MMA-RBM Document 12 Filed 12/04/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 18
1 On August 7, 2017, Petitioner, represented by appellate counsel, filed a petition for 

2 review in the California Supreme Court. (Lodgment No. 12, ECF No. 10-12.) In it, 

3 Harris argued that the appellate court erred in failing to address the merits of his claim. 

4 He asserted that the record before the appellate court was adequate because it contained 

5 defense counsel's proffer to the trial court regarding the contents of the unredacted 

6 transcript. (Jd. at 9-10.) On September 13, 201 7, the California Supreme Court denied 

7 the petition without comment or citation. (Lodgment No. 13, ECF No. 10-13.) 

8 On August 28, 2017, while his petition for review was pending before the 

9 California Supreme Court, Harris filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus in the 

10 California Supreme Court. (Lodgment No. 14, ECF No. 10-14.) Harris argued his due 

11 process rights were violated by the failure to include the unredacted transcript of the July 

12 7 phone call in the appellate record. (Id. at 3-4, 7.) The court denied the habeas petition 

13 without comment or citation on September 13, 2017. (Lodgment 15, ECF No. 10-15.) 

14 Harris filed the instant federal petition for writ of habeas corpus in this Court on 

15 March 12, 2018.3 (Am. Pet, ECF No. 4.) Respondent filed an Answer and Memorandum 

16 of Points and Authorities on June 19, 2018. (See ECF No. 7.) Petitioner did not file a 

1 7 Traverse. 

18 IV. SCOPE OF REVIEW 

19 Harris' s Petition is governed by the provisions of the Antiterrorism and Effective 

20 Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA"). See Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320 (1997). 

21 Under AEDP A, a habeas petition will not be granted unless the adjudication: (I) resulted 

22 in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly 

23 established federal law; or (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable 

24 determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented at the state court proceeding. 

25 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); Early v. Packer, 537 U.S. 3, 8 (2002). 

26 

27 3 Harris originally filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in this Court on February 5, 2018. (ECF No. 

28 1.) That petition was dismissed with leave to amend because Harris failed to sign the petition. (See 

ECF No. 3.) 

6 

18cv0274 MMA (RBM) 

Case 3:18-cv-00274-MMA-RBM Document 12 Filed 12/04/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 18
1 A federal court is not called upon to decide whether it agrees with the state court's 

2 determination; rather, the court applies an extraordinarily deferential review, inquiring 

3 only whether the state court's decision was objectively unreasonable. See Yarborough v. 

4 Gentry, 540 U.S. 1, 4 (2003); Medina v. Hornung, 386 F.3d 872, 877 (9th Cir. 2004). In 

5 order to grant relief under § 2254( d)(2), a federal court "must be convinced that an 

6 appellate panel, applying the normal standards of appellate review, could not reasonably 

7 conclude that the finding is supported by the record." See Taylor v. Maddox, 366 F.3d 

8 992, 1001 (9th Cir. 2004 ). 

9 A federal habeas court may grant relief under the '�contrary to" clause if the state 

10 court applied a rule different from the governing law set forth in Supreme Court cases, or 

11 if it decided a case differently than the Supreme Court on a set of materially 

12 indistinguishable facts. See Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685, 694 (2002). The court may grant 

13 relief under the "unreasonable application" clause if the state court correctly identified 

14 the governing legal principle from Supreme Court decisions but unreasonably applied 

15 those decisions to the facts of a particular case. Id. Additionally, the "unreasonable 

16 application" clause requires that the state court decision be more than incorrect or 

17 erroneous; to warrant habeas relief, the state court's application of clearly established 

18 federal law must be "objectively unreasonable." See Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 75 

19 (2003). 

20 Where there is no reasoned decision from the state's highest court, the Court 

21 "looks through" to the underlying appellate court decision and presumes it provides the 

22 basis for the higher court's denial of a claim or claims. See Ylst v. Nunnemaker, 501 U.S. 

23 797, 805-06 (1991 ). If the dispositive state court order does not "furnish a basis for its 

24 reasoning," federal habeas courts must conduct an independent review of the record to 

25 determine whether the state court's decision is contrary to, or an unreasonable application 

26 of, clearly established Supreme Court law. See Delgado v. Lewis, 223 F.3d 976, 982 (9th 

27 Cir. 2000) (overruled on other grounds by Andrade, 538 U.S. at 75-76); accord Himes v. 

28 Thompson, 336 F.3d 848, 853 (9th Cir. 2003). 

7 

18cv0274 MMA (RBM) 

Case 3:18-cv-00274-MMA-RBM Document 12 Filed 12/04/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 18
1 v. DISCUSSION 

2 Harris raises two grounds for relief in his Petition. In his first claim, he argues that 

3 his due process rights were violated by the exclusion of "crucial parts of [the] trial 

4 record" from the record on appeal. He contends he was denied an adequate appeal as a 

5 result. (Am. Pet., ECF No. 4 at 6.) He also includes a reference to Jackson v. Virginia, 

6 443 U.S. 307 (1979) and states that the "missing record ... raises [an] inference as to the 

7 sufficiency of evidence question." (Id.) In his second claim, Harris contends the failure 

8 to include the unredacted phone call transcript defense counsel sought (and failed) to 

9 admit at trial from the record on appeal was a violation of his due process rights. (Id. at 

10 7.) Respondent contends Petitioner is not entitled to relief because the state court's 

11 denial of the claims was neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly 

12 established law. (See Mem. P. & A. Supp. Answer, ECF No. 9-1 at 15-16.) 

13 Because claims one and two are intertwined and overlapping, this Court will 

14 discuss them together. Petitioner raised the claims in his petition for writ of habeas 

15 corpus in the California Supreme Court. (Lodgment No. 14, EF No. 10-14.) The court 

16 denied the petition without comment or citation. (See Lodgment No. 15, ECF No. 10-

17 15.) Accordingly, because there is no reasoned state court decision to which this court 

18 can defer, the court must conduct an independent review of the record to determine 

19 whether the state court's denial was contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly 

20 established law. See Himes, 336 F.3d at 853. 

21 A. Background and State Court Proceedings 

22 At trial, C.R.H. had recanted her original story and testified that she had hit Harris, 

23 not the other way around. (Lodgment No 4, ECF No. 10-4 at 131-32, 134.) She stated 

24 she was injured when Harris "accidentally" shoved a laundry basket in her face and the 

25 sharp edge from a broken handle caused her injuries. (Id. at 134, 173-74.) The 

26 prosecutor impeached C.R.H. with statements she had made on the day of the offense to 

27 eyewitnesses, the 911 dispatcher, a nurse, and a police officer. (Id. at 142-46, 153-54, 

28 156-64.) C.R.H. testified that she had made those statements because she was being 

8 

18cv0274 MMA (RBM) 

Case 3:18-cv-00274-MMA-RBM Document 12 Filed 12/04/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 8 of 18
1 dramatic and wanted to get Harris in trouble. (Id. at 142-43.) She testified that Harris 

2 had never told her to change her story, and specifically that the two never discussed 

3 changing her story during the July 7, 2015 telephone call. (Id. at 192.) 

4 The prosecution sought to impeach C.R.H. 's testimony with portions of the July 7 

5 telephone conversation between Harris and C.R.H. in which Harris can be heard telling 

6 C.R.H. to change her story. (Id. at 189-90.) The portion of the jail call proposed by the 

7 prosecutor was introduced as follows: 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

HA RRIS: Did it -when I called you right now did the name say 

something different? 

C.R.H.: What? 

HARRJS: Was it a different name? 

C.R.H.: Yeah. 

HARRJS: Yea, that's why I called you from this one or uh just 

instead of mine. 

C.R.H.: Uh hmm. 

HARJS: And so ... whatha gonna do or say? 

C.R.H.: I'm not talking to her. I'm done. 

HA RRIS: I'm talking, no I'm talking about ... as far as this. 

C.R.H.: Oh. I don't know. I'm, I'm literally, like I haven't even 

been at home. I haven't even slept since Sunday. I'm, like, fuckin' like my 

life is ruined. Like I have nowhere to live. I have no job. I'm not. .. 

[unintelligible]. 

HA RRJS: [Unintelligible] ... 

C.R.H.: ... for fuckin' [unintelligible]. 

HARRIS: Somebody's gonna call you and ask you stuff. 

9 

18cv0274 Ml\1A (RBM) 

Case 3:18-cv-00274-MMA-RBM Document 12 Filed 12/04/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 9 of 18
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

C.R.H.: Okay. They can ask me all that they want. Like, what, 

what am I going to do, like obviously ... HAR

S: What are you going to do? 

C.R.H.: ... [unintelligible]. What? 

HARS: You need to call, like, and change your story. 

[Background noises] 

HARS: You know that, right? Or, you, you don't want to? 

C.R.H.: Yeah, I, tryin' to lie talk on this stupid phone. Just gonna 

make shit worse so ... HAR

S: But just keep that in mind. 

C.R.H.: Clearly. 

HARS: Uh hmm. Yeah. So. Uh hmm. 'Cause if anything we 

15 can, we, we ... we can get this dropped. Uh hmm. 

16 

17 

18 

C.R.H.: Yeah. I'm aware of that. 

HARRIS: Yeah. 

19 (Lodgment No. 1, ECF No. 10-1 at 37-38; see also Lodgment No. 4, ECF No. 10-4 

20 at 346.) 

21 

22 

23 

In response, defense counsel moved to admit another portion of the July 7 call 

where C.R.H. purportedly said, "these charges are bullshit," "none of this even 

happened," and "we should be able to get this dropped once we get in front of a judge." 

24 (Id. at 253-54, 256, 260.) Defense counsel argued these statements were admissible 

25 

26 

under California Evidence Code section 3564 because they were on the same subject 

4 Section 356 states: 27 

28 Where part of an act, declaration, conversation, or writing is given in evidence by 

one party, the whole on the same subject may be inquired into by an adverse party; when 

10 

18cv0274 MMA (RBM) 

Case 3:18-cv-00274-MMA-RBM Document 12 Filed 12/04/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 10 of

 18
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 

matter as the conversation about C.R.H. changing her story. (Id. at 256-57, 259-61.) The 

prosecutor countered that the statements were a recitation of a previous conversation 

C.R.H. had with Harris's sister and thus involved a different subject. The trial judge 

reviewed the unredacted transcript of the phone call and concluded that section 356 did 

not require admission of the statements defense counsel sought to introduce, stating: 

It seems to me what [C.R.H.'s] talking about is what she told the 

sister, and that's -that's why I'm not letting it in. It's not about the 

conversation with him. [C.R.H.'s] repeating what she told her-what she 

told his sister. When [C.R.H.] uses defendant's name, 'Labrone and I have 

been talking all day,' she's not having a conversation with him. She's 

reciting what she told the sister, so it doesn't seem to be the same 

conversation, and I'm not going to let it in. 

(Id. at 261.) 

On direct appeal to the California Court of Appeal, Petitioner argued that the trial 

court erred in denying his motion to admit additional portions of the July 7 telephone 

conversation. The appellate court found that because the unredacted transcript was not 

part of the appellate record it could not review whether the trial court abused its 

discretion. Further, the appellate court concluded that even assuming the trial court erred, 

any such error was harmless. The appellate court stated, in relevant part: 

A trial court's determination of whether evidence is admissible under 

Evidence Code section 356 is reviewed for abuse of discretion. (People v. 

Parrish (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 263, 274.) 

Evidence Code section 356 states: "Where part of an act, declaration, 

conversation, or writing is given in evidence by one party, the whole on the 

same subject may be inquired into by an adverse party; when a letter is read, 

the answer may be given; and when a detached act, declaration, 

conversation, or writing is given in evidence, any other act, declaration, 

conversation, or writing which is necessary to make it understood may also 

a letter is read, the answer may be given; and when a detached act, declaration, 

conversation, or writing is given in evidence, any other act, declaration, conversation, or 

writing which is necessary to make it understood may also be given in evidence. 

Cal. Evid. Code § 356. 

11 

18cv0274 MMA (RBM) 

Case 3:18-cv-00274-MMA-RBM Document 12 Filed 12/04/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 11 of

 18
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 

be given in evidence." 

'"In applying Evidence Code section 356 the courts do not draw 

narrow lines around the exact subject of inquiry. "In the event a statement 

admitted in evidence constitutes part of a conversation or correspondence, 

the opponent is entitled to have placed in evidence all that was said or 

written by or to the declarant in the course of such conversation or 

correspondence, provided the other statements have some bearing upon, or 

connection with, the admission or declaration in evidence .... " [Citations.]"' 

(People v. Zapien (1993) 4 Cal.4th 929, 959.) "Further, the jury is entitled 

to know the context in which the statements on direct examination were 

made." (People v. Harris (2005) 37 Cal.4th 310, 335.) 

The prosecution [also] gave an unredacted transcript of the July 7 

conversation to the court, who reviewed it before denying the defense 

motion under Evidence Code section 356. The unredacted transcript is not 

in the appellate record. The appellant has the burden to produce an adequate 

record demonstrating trial court error. (Baranchik v. Fizulich (2017) 10 

Cal.App.5th 1210, 1226.) Without the unredacted transcript, we cannot 

review whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the 

defendant's motion to admit a portion of the July 7 conversation. Because 

the record is inadequate for appellate review, we presume the court ruled 

correctly. (Id., at p. 122 7.) 

Furthermore, in view of the overwhelming evidence supporting the 

verdict, error, if any, is harmless. A judgment will not be reversed due to the 

erroneous exclusion of evidence unless it appears, upon examining the entire 

cause, including the evidence, a miscarriage of justice has resulted. (Cal. 

Const., art. VI,§ 13; Evid. Code,§ 354.) A miscarriage of justice occurs 

only when the reviewing court is convinced it is reasonably probable a result 

more favorable to the appellant would have been reached absent the error. 

(California Crane School, Inc. v. National Commission/or Certification of 

Crane Operators (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 12, 24.) 

Here, it is not reasonably probable a result more favorable to the 

appellant would have been reached absent the error. There is overwhelming 

evidence to show the appellant committed the crimes of corporal injury to 

spouse and assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury, and 

inflicted great bodily injury on the victim. A disinterested eyewitness 

12 

18cv0274 MMA (RBM) 

Case 3:18-cv-00274-MMA-RBM Document 12 Filed 12/04/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 12 of

 18
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

testified he saw Harris hit C.R.H. very hard in the face. He and another 

witness heard C.R.H. identify the assailant as her husband after she was 

assaulted. When C.R.H. telephoned 911, she said, "[M]y husband just beat 

the shit out of me. I'm gushing blood, please come help me. [ ,] ... [�] He 

punched me, I'm bleeding everywhere."" 

An emergency room nurse testified C.R.H. had a large cut to her left 

eyebrow. C.R.H. said her husband hit her in the face and knocked her out. 

The record shows that C.R.H. suffered fractures near the eye socket and to 

her maxillary sinus. She bled profusely from a cut over her left eyebrow, and 

her cheekbone was bruised and swollen. 

The responding police officer said C.R.H. was fearful and crying 

when he met with her at the hospital shortly after the incident. C.R.H. told 

him that Harris had become "enraged with anger" and was still verbally 

abusive the following morning. When C.R.H. picked him up, Harris slapped 

her in the back of her head while she was driving. He threatened to "knock 

her the fuck out" and said he was going to "knock her out" when they got 

home. C.R.H. said she was frightened, stopped the car, and ran away from 

Harris. Later, Harris refused to leave the apartment without his court 

documents, which were in the trunk of C.R.H.'s car. C.R.H. told the police 

officer when she handed the court documents to Harris, he drew back his 

right arm and hit her in the face. 

In view of the overwhelming evidence supporting the verdict, it is not 

reasonably probable that the jury, upon hearing C.R.H. tell the defendant she 

had told his sister "these charges are BS," would have returned a result more 

favorable to appellant. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment. (Cal. Const., 

art. VI, § 13; Evid. Code, § 354.) 

(Lodgment No. 11, ECF No. 10-11 at 5-6, 8-10.) 

B. Merits 

It is clearly established that a state must provide the indigent criminal defendant 

24 with "a record of sufficient completeness to permit proper consideration of (his) claims" 

25 in order to satisfy the constitutional guarantees of due process and equal protection. 

26 Mayer v. City of Chicago, 404 U.S. 189, 193-94 (1971) (citation and internal quotation 

27 marks omitted); Britt v. North Carolina, 404 U.S. 226, 227 (1971) C'there can be no 

28 doubt that the State must provide an indigent defendant with a transcript of prior 

13 

18cv0274 MMA (RBM) 

Case 3:18-cv-00274-MMA-RBM Document 12 Filed 12/04/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 13 of

 18
1 proceedings when that transcript is needed for an effective defense or appeal"); see also 

2 Draper v. Washington, 372 U.S. 487, 495 (1963). "A 'record of sufficient completeness' 

3 does not translate automatically into a complete verbatim transcript." Mayer, 404 U.S. at 

4 194. Whether a transcript is needed for an effective defense or appeal depends on: "( 1) 

5 the value of the transcript to the defendant in connection with the appeal or trial for which 

6 it is sought, and (2) the availability of alternative devices that would fulfill the same 

7 functions as the transcript." Britt, 404 U.S. at 433-34. The Ninth Circuit has held that 

8 the Britt criteria apply in evaluating a habeas petitioner's claim that the reconstruction of 

9 unrecorded portions of state trial court proceedings was inadequate for him to make an 

10 effective appeal. See Madera v. Risley, 885 F .2d 646, 648 (9th Cir. 1989). 

11 Petitioner has the burden of establishing prejudice from the lack of a complete 

12 transcript in light of the alleged value of the transcript and the availability of alternatives 

13 that would fulfill the same functions. Id. at 648-49 (finding that the petitioner was not 

14 entitled to habeas relief because he had not shown prejudice by the absence of a complete 

15 transcript); see Scott v. Elo, 302 F.3d 598, 604 (6th Cir. 2002) ("federal habeas relief 

16 based on a missing transcript will only be granted where the petitioner can show 

1 7 prejudice"); White v. State of Florida, Department of Corrections, 93 9 F .2d 912, 914 

18 (11th Cir. 1991) ("in a federal habeas corpus case brought by a state prisoner, the absence 

19 of a perfect transcript does not violate due process absent a showing of specific 

20 prejudice"). 

21 Here, while a copy of the unredacted transcript of the July 7 telephone call was not 

22 included in the record on appeal, the contents of the transcript were discussed at length on 

23 the record. (See Lodgment No. 4, ECF No. 10-4 at 253-61.) Defense counsel made it 

24 clear what statements he believed were relevant and admissible. He quoted portions of 

25 the transcript on the record. (Id. at 257-58.) Both defense counsel the prosecutor 

26 discussed the context of the statements on the record. (Id. at 255-60.) Finally, the trial 

27 judge explained his decision to exclude the statements on the record, referring in part to 

28 the context of the statements. (Id. at 261.) 

14 

18cv0274 MMA (REM) 

Case 3:18-cv-00274-MMA-RBM Document 12 Filed 12/04/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 14 of

 18
1 First, Harris points to no clearly established U.S. Supreme Court precedent which 

2 requires a state court to include excluded evidence in the appellate Tecord. Without any 

3 clearly established federal law from the Supreme Court, the state court's adjudication of 

4 the claim cannot be said to be contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, such law. 

5 See Carey v. Musladin, 549 U.S. 70, 77 (2006); see also Moses v. Payne, 555 F.3d 742, 

6 754 (9th Cir. 2009) ("[W]hen a Supreme Court decision does not 'squarely address[]' the 

7 issue in th[e] case ... it cannot be said, under AEDPA, there is 'clearly established' 

8 Supreme Court precedent addressing the issue ... ,and so [a federal habeas court] must 

9 defer to the state court's decision.") 

10 In addition, Harris cannot establish he was prejudiced by the failure to include the 

11 transcript in the record on appeal. As the state appellate court found, even if the trial 

12 court had admitted the statements, the result of the trial would not have been different. 

13 The defense had already presented testimony that C.R. H. 's original statements, made 

14 immediately after the incident, were untrue. C.R.H. testified at trial that she had 

15 fabricated the story about appellant punching her in the fact because she was angry and 

16 wanted to get him in trouble. (Lodgment No. 4, ECF No. 10-4 at 143-46, 154-55, 167.) 

1 7 She stated that she was the one who had hit Harris because she was afraid of getting 

18 arrested and being deported. (Id. at 172, 186.) She told the jury that she finally wanted 

19 to set the record straight and take responsibility for what happened. (Id. at 166.) Thus, 

20 C.R.H. had ample opportunity to explain the inconsistencies with her story to the jury. 

21 The portion of the unredacted transcript defense counsel sought to introduce, even when 

22 viewed in a context most favorable to the defense,5 was merely redundant of testimony 

23 that was already presented to the jury. 

24 Furthermore, C.H.R's testimony notwithstanding, the evidence against of Harris 

25 

26 5 The prosecutor suggested that C.R.H. was telling Harris what she had told his sister. Defense counsel 

acknowledged that C.R.H. was discussing her conversation with Harris's sister but suggested that the 27 conversation was "fluid" and it was possible to interpret the statements as C.R.H. claiming the charges 

28 were "B.S." (Lodgment No. 4, ECF No. 10-4 at 257-58.) As noted above, the trial judge concluded 

C.R.H. was merely relaying her conversation with Petitioner's sister. (Id at 261.) 

15 

18cv0274 MMA (RBM) 

Case 3:18-cv-00274-MMA-RBM Document 12 Filed 12/04/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 15 of

 18
1 was overwhelming. An eyewitness, Cameron Stacy, testified that he saw Harris punch 

2 C.R.H. in the face. (Lodgment No. 4, ECF No. 10-4 at 75-78, 99-100.) Stacy stated that 

3 Harris hit C.R.H. "as hard as he would hit a man." He further testified that he never saw 

4 C.R.H. hit Harris and Harris never had a laundry basket in his hands. (Id. at 82, 84-85.) 

5 Stacy's girlfriend, who witnessed the immediate aftermath, testified that C.R.H. was 

6 bleeding profusely and kept repeating that her husband did this to her. (Id. at 211-12, 

7 214.) 

8 Stacy's testimony was consistent with what C.R.H. told others immediately after 

9 the incident. The emergency room nurse, for instance, testified that C.R.H. told her that 

10 Harris had punched her in the face. (Id. at 233, 236.) The interviewing officer also 

11 testified that C.R.H. said Harris had hit her in the face with his right fist. (Id. at 289.) 

12 She asked the officer for an emergency protective order against Harris. (Id. at 304.) In 

13 her 911 call she reported that "my husband just beat the shit out of me." She told the 

14 dispatcher that Harris had punched her with his fist and she was "bleeding everywhere." 

15 (Lodgment No. 1, ECF No. 10-1 at 30-32.) Dr. Matthew Cronin testified that C.R.H. 

16 suffered two fracture in her left cheek area and that her injuries were consistent with 

17 being punched in the face. (Lodgment No. 4, ECF No. 10-4 at 273-74, 278-79, 281-82.) 

18 Given the overwhelming evidence against Harris, the exclusion of the unredacted 

19 transcript from the appellate record did not prejudice Petitioner. See Madera, 885 F.2d at 

20 648-49 (finding that the petitioner was not entitled to habeas relief because he had not 

21 shown prejudice by the absence of a complete transcript). 

22 Lastly, Harris' s claim that his due process rights under Jackson v. Virginia, 443 

23 U.S. 307 (1979) were violated fails for the same reason. In Jackson, the Supreme Court 

24 held that the due process clause is violated "if it is found that upon the evidence adduced 

25 at the trial no rational trier of fact could have found proof of guilt beyond a reasonable 

26 doubt." Id. at 324; see also Juan H v. Allen, 408 F.3d 1262, 1275 (9th Cir. 2005); see 

27 also Cavazos v. Smith, 565 U.S. 1, 7 (2011) (per curiam ). Under Jackson, a federal court 

28 must review the state court record and view the evidence in the "light most favorable to 

16 

18cv0274 MMA (RBM) 

Case 3:18-cv-00274-MMA-RBM Document 12 Filed 12/04/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 16 of

 18
1 the prosecution and all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from this evidence." 

2 Juan H., 408 F.3d at 1276 (citing Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319). Here, a reasonable juror 

3 could have found Harris guilty beyond a reasonable doubt for the same reasons discussed 

4 above. There was overwhelming evidence presented at trial to establish that Harris had 

5 punched C.R.H. in the face. That evidence included testimony from eyewitnesses, 

6 medical professionals who treated C.R.H. right after the incident and police officers who 

7 interviewed C.R.H. Thus, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the 

8 prosecution, there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict. 

9 In sum, having conducted an independent review of the record, this Court finds the 

10 state court's denial of the due process claims raised in grounds one and two of the 

11 Petition, was neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established 

12 law. See Himes, 336 F.3d at 853; see also 28 U.S.C. §2254(d). The Court therefore 

13 RECOMMENDS the Petition be DENIED. 

14 C. Request for Evidentiary Hearing 

15 Harris asks this Court to conduct an evidentiary hearing on his claims. (See Pet., 

16 ECF No. 4 at 7.) Petitioner does not, however, identify what evidence, if any, he intends 

17 to present. But presumably it would include a copy of the unredacted transcript of the 

18 July 7 telephone conversation. 

19 Petitioner's request is foreclosed by the Supreme Court's decision in Cullen v. 

20 Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170 (2011). There, the Supreme Court held that the district court 

21 should not have held an evidentiary hearing until after the Court determined that the 

22 petition survived review under section 2254(d). Id; see also Gonzalez v. Wong, 667 F.3d 

23 965, 979 (9th Cir. 2011 ). The Ninth Circuit has recognized that Pinholster "effectively 

24 precludes federal evidentiary hearings" on claims adjudicated on the merits in state court. 

25 Gulbrandson v. Ryan, 73 8 F .3d 97 6, 993 (9th Cir. 2013 ). Here, Harris is not entitled to 

26 relief under §2254( d) for the reasons discussed above in section V(B) of this Report and 

27 Recommendation. As such, he is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing. See Sully v. 

28 Ayers, 725 F.3d 1057, 1075 (9th Cir. 2013) ("[A]n evidentiary hearing is pointless once 

17 

18cv0274 MMA (RBM) 

Case 3:18-cv-00274-MMA-RBM Document 12 Filed 12/04/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 17 of

 18
1 the district court has determined that § 2254( d) precludes habeas relief.") (internal 

2 quotation marks and citation omitted). Accordingly, Harris's request for an evidentiary 

3 hearing is DENIED. 

4 VI. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 

5 The Court submits this Report and Recommendation to United States District 

6 Judge Michael M. Anello under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l) and Local Civil Rule HC.2 of the 

7 United States District Court for the Southern District of California. For the reasons 

8 outlined above, the Court DENIES Petitioner's request for an evidentiary hearing. 

9 In addition, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the Court issue an Order: 

10 ( 1) approving and adopting this Report and Recommendation, and (2) directing that 

11 Judgment be entered DENYING the Petition. 

12 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that any party to this action may file written 

13 objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties no later than December 28, 

14 2018. The document should be captioned "Objections to Report and Recommendation." 

15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any Reply to the Objections shall be filed with 

16 the Court and served on all parties no later than January 16, 2019. The parties are 

17 advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 

18 raise those objections on appeal of the Court's Order. See Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 

19 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951F.2d1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991). 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

DATED: !J-/1-/J f' 

----,_+-, ---

��o 

United States Magistrate Judge 

18 

18cv0274 MMA (RBM) 

Case 3:18-cv-00274-MMA-RBM Document 12 Filed 12/04/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 18 of

 18