Source: http://ca.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20131219_0001448.SCA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2017-03-30 05:19:00
Document Index: 94702752

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2254', '§25401', '§ 25541', '§ 487', '§ 368', '§ 186', '§ 2254', '§ 2254', '§ 2254']

| Swain v. Beard
THEODORE SWAIN, Petitioner,v.JEFFREY BEARD, Secretary[1], Respondent.
On May 17, 2011, Petitioner Theodore Swain ("Petitioner"), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. No. 1.) On October 24, 2012, Respondent filed a response. (Doc. No. 21.) On September 6, 2013, the magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation to deny the petition for writ of habeas corpus. (Doc. No. 45.) For the following reasons, the Court denies the petition for writ of habeas corpus and adopts the magistrate judge's report and recommendation.
On March 4, 2008, a jury in the California Superior Court of San Diego County convicted the Petitioner of a number of charges related to his involvement in a securities fraud scheme. (Lodgment No. 1, vol.3 at 105.) The jury found Petitioner guilty of fifteen counts of selling securities by misrepresentation or omission of a material fact (Cal. Corp. Code §§25401, 25540(b)), six counts of engaging in fraudulent securities schemes (Cal. Corp. Code §§ 25541, 25540 (a)), and eight counts of grand theft (Cal. Penal Code § 487(a)). The jury also found that three of the thefts were committed against elders (Cal. Penal Code § 368(d)) and that Petitioner engaged in a pattern of related felony conduct involving the taking of more than $100, 000, $500, 000 and $2, 500, 000 against the elders, respectively. (Cal. Penal Code §§ 186.11(a)(2)) and 12022.6(a)(4)). (Lodgment No. 1, vol. 1 at 164-195; see also id. vol. 2 at 442-45.) Petitioner unsuccessfully appealed his conviction to the California Court of Appeal and to the California Supreme Court. (Lodgment Nos. 3, 6, 7, 8.) Petitioner then filed petitions for writ of habeas corpus in the San Diego Superior Court, which denied his petition, and in the California Court of Appeal, which denied his petition. (Lodgment No. 9, 13.)
On May 17, 2011, Petitioner filed this federal petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. No. 1) On September 6, 2013, the magistrate judge filed a report and recommendation to deny the petition for writ of habeas corpus. (Doc. No. 45.)
A federal court may grant habeas relief under the "contrary to" clause of § 2254(d)(1) if a state court either "applies a rule that contradicts the governing law set forth in [the United States Supreme Court's] cases" or "confronts a set of facts that are materially indistinguishable from a decision of [the] Court and nevertheless arrives at a result different from [the Court's] precedent." Early v. Packer , 537 U.S. 3, 8 (2002); see also Williams , 529 U.S. at 405-06 (distinguishing the "contrary to" and the "unreasonable application" standards). "[R]eview under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1) is limited to the record that was before the state court that adjudicated the claim on the merits." Cullen v. Pinholster , 131 S.Ct. 1388, 1398 (2011).
Additionally, even if a state court decision is contrary to United States Supreme Court precedent or rests on an unreasonable determination of facts in light of the evidence, the petitioner must show that such error caused substantial or injurious prejudice. Penry v. Johnson , 532 U.S. 782, 795 (2001) (quoting Brecht , 507 U.S. at 637-38); see Fry v. Pliler , 551 U.S. 112, 121-22 (2007); Bains v. Cambra , 204 F.3d 964, 977 (9th Cir. 2000). AEDPA creates a highly deferential standard toward state court rulings. Woodford v. Viscotti , 537 U.S. 19, 24 (2002); see Womack v. Del Papa , 497 F.3d 998, 1001 (9th Cir. 2007).
In his federal petition for writ of habeas corpus, Petitioner raises seven grounds for relief.[2] In claim one, Petitioner argues the trial court erred in failing to give a unanimity instruction with regard to the securities fraud, theft and securities scheme charges, and that his defense counsel was ineffective in failing to request such instructions. In claim two, Petitioner contends he received multiple sentences for the same acts, in violation of his constitutional rights. In claim three, Petitioner asserts the trial court improperly instructed the jury on the elements of the charged securities offenses, in violation of his due process rights. In claim four Petitioner argues he received ineffective assistance of counsel, in violation of his Sixth Amendment rights. In claim five, Petitioner claims he received ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, in violation of ...