Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00945/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00945-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
P. D. Brazelton
Respondent
Ivan O. Ordaz
Petitioner

Document Text:

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IVAN O. ORDAZ,

Petitioner,

v.

P. D. BRAZELTON,

Respondent.

Case No. 15-cv-00945-VC (PR)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS; 

DENYING CERTIFICATE OF 

APPEALABILITY

The petition for a writ of habeas corpus is denied. With respect to all the issues raised by 

Ordaz in this petition, the decision of the California Court of Appeal on direct review was neither 

contrary to clearly established federal law nor an unreasonable determination of the facts in light 

of the evidence presented at trial. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 412 

(2000). In fact, the thoroughly-reasoned decision of the Court of Appeal appears correct in all 

respects. To summarize:

 In light of the evidence presented, the Court of Appeal correctly concluded that 

Ordaz's confession was voluntary. Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157, 164 

(1986); United States v. Guerrero, 847 F.2d 1363, 1366 (9th Cir. 1988).

 With respect to the trial court's decision to allow testimony about Ordaz's prior 

assault conviction, even assuming this claim is cognizable in a federal habeas 

petition, it was not unreasonable for the Court of Appeal to uphold the admission of 

the prior conviction, particularly in light of the fact that the details of the prior 

assault were relevant to prove the gang enhancement. Jamal v. Van de Kamp, 926 

F.2d 918, 920 (9th Cir. 1991).

 With respect to the limits the trial court placed on the defense expert's testimony, 

Case 3:15-cv-00945-VC Document 8 Filed 12/29/15 Page 1 of 2
2

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

Northern District of California

even assuming this claim is cognizable on federal habeas, it was not unreasonable 

for the Court of Appeal to conclude that the trial court's limits were appropriately 

designed to prevent the expert from testifying that the defendant was telling the 

truth. Montana v. Egelhoff, 518 U.S. 37, 42 (1996).

 Even if Ordaz had not defaulted on his claim for prosecutorial misconduct, it was 

not unreasonable for the Court of Appeal to conclude that the prosecutor's 

statements during closing argument were permissible. Darden v. Wainwright, 477 

U.S. 168, 181-82 (1986); United States v. Robinson, 485 U.S. 25, 33 (1988).

 To the extent Ordaz has not defaulted on his claims of instructional error, he has 

not shown how any alleged instructional error could have so infected the trial as to 

deny him due process. Indeed, as the Court of Appeal explained, the trial court 

appears to have committed no instructional error at all. Estelle v. McGuire, 502 

U.S. 62, 71-72 (1991); Cupp v. Naughten, 414 U.S. 141, 147 (1973).

A certificate of appealability will not issue. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). This is not a case in 

which "reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims 

debatable or wrong." Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).

The Clerk shall substitute Warden Scott Frauenheim as Respondent, in accordance with 

Habeas Rule 2(a) and Rule 25(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

The Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of respondent and close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

______________________________________

VINCE CHHABRIA

United States District Judge

December 29, 2015

Case 3:15-cv-00945-VC Document 8 Filed 12/29/15 Page 2 of 2