Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01352/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01352-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Bryan D. Phillips
Respondent
Armando Villanueva
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ARMANDO VILLANUEVA,

Petitioner,

v.

BRYAN D. PHILLIPS, Warden,

Respondent.

No. 1:23-cv-01352-KES-SKO (HC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING 

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS 

CORPUS, DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT 

TO ENTER JUDGMENT AND CLOSE CASE, 

DECLINING TO ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF 

APPEALABILITY 

Doc. 11

Petitioner Armando Villanueva is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 

with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This matter was referred 

to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On December 5, 2023, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 

recommendations to deny the petition on its merits. Doc. 11. Those findings and 

recommendations were served upon all parties and contained notice that any objections thereto 

were to be filed within twenty-one (21) days after service. On February 2, 2024, petitioner filed 

objections to the findings and recommendations. Doc. 14. 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court has conducted a de 

Case 1:23-cv-01352-KES-SKO Document 16 Filed 12/13/24 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

novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the file, including petitioner’s objections, the 

Court concludes that the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper 

analysis. 

The findings and recommendations conclude that petitioner’s first claim is not cognizable 

on federal habeas review because the admissibility of evidence is a matter of state law, and 

petitioner’s claim that the admission of certain evidence violated his constitutional rights is not 

squarely addressed by any Supreme Court decision. Doc. 11 at 5–9. The findings and 

recommendations conclude that petitioner’s second claim – that the trial court violated 

petitioner’s Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights by deciding the case on grounds other than 

those raised to the appellate court – is not cognizable because no Supreme Court decision has 

squarely addressed whether a state appellate court’s affirmance on grounds not raised in the 

appellate brief denies a petitioner’s constitutional rights. Doc. 11 at 9–10. Both of the magistrate 

judge’s conclusions are correct for the same overarching reason.

In Teague v. Lane, the Supreme Court held that new rules of constitutional law may not be 

invoked or urged by a petitioner on federal habeas review under section 2254. 489 U.S. 288 

(1989). “A rule is new unless it was ‘dictated by precedent existing at the time the defendant's 

conviction became final.’” Edwards v. Vannoy, 593 U.S. 255, 265 (2021) (quoting id. at 301). 

“In other words, a rule is new unless, at the time the conviction became final, the rule was already 

‘apparent to all reasonable jurists.’” Id. (quoting Lambrix v. Singletary, 520 U.S. 518, 528, 

(1997)). This requirement is also embodied in 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), which states that a petition 

shall not be granted unless the state court’s decision was contrary to “clearly established federal 

law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” Williams v. Taylor, 592 U.S. 

362, 379–84 (2000). Neither of petitioner’s proffered claims are “dictated by precedent.” 

As for the first claim, “[f]ederal habeas corpus review does not lie for errors of state law,” 

such as whether evidence should have been admitted at trial, “unless the admission violated [the 

petitioner’s] federal constitutional rights.” Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67–68 (1991). 

Petitioner argues that the trial court’s refusal to admit evidence of a test conducted by his expert 

witness violated his Sixth Amendment right to present a full defense. Doc. 14 at 3. However, the 

Case 1:23-cv-01352-KES-SKO Document 16 Filed 12/13/24 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

Ninth Circuit has held that no Supreme Court case “either squarely address[es] the discretionary 

exclusion of evidence and the right to present a complete defense or establish[es] a controlling 

legal standard for evaluating such conclusions.” Brown v. Horell, 644 F.3d 969, 983 (9th Cir. 

2011) (quotations omitted); see also Moses v. Payne, 555 F.3d 742, 758–59 (9th Cir. 2009). The 

right petitioner asserts therefore is not “clearly established,” and cannot be made on federal 

habeas review.

Petitioner’s second claim is that the state appellate court violated petitioner’s Sixth 

Amendment rights by deciding the case on grounds other than those raised in the appeal. Doc. 11 

at 9–10. However, no Supreme Court case has held that deciding a case on grounds different than 

those raised violates a party’s Sixth Amendment rights. In fact, both the Ninth Circuit and the 

California courts of appeal have held that an appellate court may affirm a lower court’s judgment 

on any ground in the record, not only the one raised on appeal. Atel Fin. Corp. v. Quaker Coal 

Co., 321 F.3d 924, 926 (9th Cir. 2003); D’Amico v. Bd. of Med. Examiners, 11 Cal. 3d 1, 19 

(1974). Unless there was a Supreme Court decision which clearly contradicted these holdings

prior to petitioner’s conviction, petitioner’s proffered claim is a new rule that cannot be asserted 

here. Petitioner points to no controlling Supreme Court decision, and the Court is not aware of 

one. Therefore, the findings and recommendations reached the correct conclusion as to both of 

petitioner’s claims, and the petition is denied.

In addition, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. A state prisoner 

seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of 

his petition, and an appeal is allowed only in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 

U.S. 322, 335-336 (2003). The controlling statute in determining whether to issue a certificate of 

appealability is 28 U.S.C. § 2253, which provides as follows:

(a) In a habeas corpus proceeding or a proceeding under section 2255 before a 

district judge, the final order shall be subject to review, on appeal, by the court of 

appeals for the circuit in which the proceeding is held.

(b) There shall be no right of appeal from a final order in a proceeding to test 

the validity of a warrant to remove to another district or place for commitment or 

trial a person charged with a criminal offense against the United States, or to test 

the validity of such person's detention pending removal proceedings.

Case 1:23-cv-01352-KES-SKO Document 16 Filed 12/13/24 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

(c) (1) Unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability, an 

appeal may not be taken to the court of appeals from—

(A) the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the 

detention complained of arises out of process issued by a State 

court; or

(B) the final order in a proceeding under section 2255.

(2) A certificate of appealability may issue under paragraph (1) only if the 

applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional 

right.

(3) The certificate of appealability under paragraph (1) shall indicate which 

specific issue or issues satisfy the showing required by paragraph (2).

If a court denies a petitioner’s petition, the court may issue a certificate of appealability 

only when a petitioner makes a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To make a substantial showing, the petitioner must establish that 

“reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have 

been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were ‘adequate to deserve 

encouragement to proceed further.’” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (quoting 

Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 (1983)).

In the present case, the Court finds that petitioner has not made the required substantial 

showing of the denial of a constitutional right to justify the issuance of a certificate of 

appealability. Reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s determination that petitioner is not 

entitled to federal habeas corpus relief debatable, wrong, or deserving of encouragement to 

proceed further. Thus, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability.

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 1:23-cv-01352-KES-SKO Document 16 Filed 12/13/24 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

Accordingly, 

1. The findings and recommendations issued on December 5, 2023, Doc. 11, are 

adopted in full;

2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied; 

3. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment and close the case; and

4. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 12, 2024 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-01352-KES-SKO Document 16 Filed 12/13/24 Page 5 of 5