Pierre Lakell Morris v. D. Holbrook ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PIERRE LAKELL MORRIS, Case No. 2:20-cv-03344-FLA (AGR) 12 Petitioner, ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS 13 v. AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE 14 D. HOLBROOK, et al., JUDGE 15 Respondents. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the court has reviewed Pierre Lakell Morris’ 2 (“Petitioner”) Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”) (Dkt. 1), the records 3 on file, and the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge 4 (“Report”) (Dkt. 28 (“Report”)). Further, the court has engaged in a de novo review 5 of those portions of the Report to which objections have been made. 6 The Report recommends denial of the Petition and dismissal of this action 7 with prejudice. Report at 46. Petitioner’s objections to the Report (Dkt. 33) do not 8 warrant a change to the Magistrate Judge’s findings or recommendation. 9 Petitioner objects, as to Claim Three, that the evidence was insufficient to 10 support his convictions for kidnapping to commit rape and rape. Dkt. 33 at 1. 11 As to the kidnapping to commit rape, Petitioner objects that the evidence 12 showed the victim was moved for the purposes of robbery, rather than rape. Id. To 13 the contrary, a rational jury could conclude from the evidence that the victim was 14 moved from the front to the back of the spa with the specific intent to commit rape. 15 Report at 29–31. Petitioner’s alternative explanation for the movement does not 16 render the evidence insufficient to support the conviction. See United States v. 17 Nevils, 598 F.3d 1158, 1169 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc) (“[W]e do not construe the 18 evidence in the light most favorable to innocence, and therefore do not consider 19 [appellant’s] argument that there is an equally plausible innocent explanation for 20 [the evidence].”). 21 As to the rape, Petitioner objects that the evidence failed to establish Jared 22 Santiago’s identity as the perpetrator of the rape, meaning Petitioner could not be 23 liable as an aider and abettor. Dkt. 33 at 1–2. To the contrary, the victim identified 24 Santiago as the perpetrator of the rape. Dkt. 20-4 at 44–45; Dkt. 20-10 at 5. The 25 evidence also established that Petitioner helped Santiago facilitate the rape or that 26 rape was a natural and probable consequence of the kidnapping to commit rape. 27 Report at 31–36. Thus, a rational jury could conclude that Petitioner was guilty of 28 rape under a theory of aiding and abetting. 1 In sum, Petitioner’s objections are overruled. 2 ORDER 3 It is ORDERED that (1) the Report is ACCEPTED AND ADOPTED; and 4 || (2) Judgment shall be ENTERED denying the Petition and dismissing this action 5 || with prejudice. 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 9 |) Dated: March 29, 2024 eof) _ 10 FERNAND L. AENL E-ROCHA United States District Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28