(HC) Sharp v. Koenig ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANTHONY ANDRE SHARP, Case No. 1:19-cv-01241-HBK (HC) 12 Petitioner, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF 13 v. HABEAS CORPUS AND TO DECLINE TO ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF 14 CRAIG KOENIG, APPEALABILITY1 15 Respondent. FOURTEEN-DAY OBJECTION PERIOD 16 (Doc. No. 9) 17 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE 18 19 20 Petitioner Anthony Andre Sharp (“Petitioner” or “Sharp”), an inmate incarcerated within 21 the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, proceeds on his pro se amended 22 petition for writ of habeas corpus filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. No. 9, “Petition”). The 23 Petition challenges Sharp’s November 29, 2016 conviction and indeterminate term of 25 years to 24 life sentence for possession of child pornography entered by the Fresno Superior Court. (Id. at 1, 25 Doc. No. 19 at 5). For the reasons set forth below, the undersigned recommends the district 26 court deny the Petition, as amended, and decline to issue a certificate of appealability. 27 1 This matter was referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302 28 (E.D. Cal. 2022). 1 I. BACKGROUND 2 A. Procedural History 3 Petitioner initiated this case on September 6, 2019 by filing a petition for writ of habeas 4 corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. No. 1). Petitioner was granted leave and filed an amended 5 petition on February 18, 2020. (Doc. No. 9). The Petition, as amended, identifies five grounds 6 for relief: (1) Petitioner’s current sentence enhanced under California’s Three Strikes Law is 7 “illegal” because his prior offenses occurred before the Three Strikes Law was enacted in 1994; 8 (2) Petitioner was denied “due process” and “equal protection” because the state court denied his 9 Romero motion without affording Petitioner a hearing; (3) Petitioner was subjected to “criminal 10 fraud” and his Sixth Amendment rights were violated because the District Attorney does not 11 represent “the People in criminal cases”; (4) Petitioner’s Boykin-Tahl rights were violated; and (5) 12 Petitioner’s sentence is illegal due to cumulative error of grounds 1-4. (Id. at 1-13). Also, in his 13 memorandum in support of the Petition, Petitioner peripherally challenges his three earlier state 14 convictions on the basis that his guilty pleas were unknowing and involuntary. (Id. at 14). 15 On September 18, 2020, Respondent filed an answer to the petition and lodged the 16 pertinent state court record in support. (Doc. Nos. 19-20). On October 15, 2020, Petitioner filed 17 a reply. (Doc. 22). On November 17, 2020, the case was reassigned to the undersigned. (Doc. 18 No. 23). 19 B. Facts Based Upon the Record 20 Petitioner admits that he had the following expired plea-based state court convictions: an 21 October 24, 1986 conviction out of San Diego County for lewd and lascivious on a child under 22 the age of 14 for which he was sentenced to 3 years and served 1 ½ years; an August 11, 1988 23 conviction out of San Diego County for lewd and lascivious on a child under the age of 14 for 24 which he was sentenced to 8 years and served 4 years; and a March 3, 1997 conviction out of San 25 Diego County for lewd and lascivious on a child under the age of 14 for which he was sentenced 26 to 16 years and paroled after serving 14 years. (Doc. No. 9 at 14). At the time of his 2016 27 offense, Petitioner was civilly committed to Coalinga State Hospital as a sexually violent 28 predator. (Doc. No. 20-33 at 1). While at Coalinga State Hospital, Petitioner was charged with 1 possession of child pornography in violation of Penal Code section 311.11, subdivision (a). 2 To put Petitioner’s arguments in context, the undersigned includes a brief summary of 3 relevant trial evidence here. During a routine search of a dormitory, officers noticed Petitioner 4 acting nervously and observed him remove a disc he was watching on his DVD player. (Doc. No. 5 20-3 at 37-40, 84-85). He was also observed trying to hide three discs that he had in his 6 possession. (Id. at 39, 85-86). Petitioner and an officer engaged in tug-of-war before Petitioner 7 relinquished the DVDs. (Id. at 46, 51, 53, 86, 96). Petitioner was interviewed multiple times and 8 gave conflicting statements. (See Doc. No. 20-3 at 107-11; Doc. No. 20-4 at 61-75, 174-78). 9 Ultimately, Petitioner admitted the DVDs contained inappropriate material and offered to become 10 a confidential informant. (Doc. No. 20-4 at 32-33, 63-64). Officers reviewed the DVD and found 11 approximately 234 images of child pornography on a DVD that Petitioner had in his possession. 12 (Id. at 81-89). After hearing the evidence, a jury found Petitioner guilty of possession of child 13 pornography. (Id. at 198-200). Petitioner waived his right to a jury trial on his priors. (Id. at 14 148; Doc. No. 20-2 at 20). In a bifurcated hearing, the trial court heard arguments on Petitioner’s 15 Romero motion, and Petitioner addressed the court. (Doc. No. 20-5 at 5-10). The trial court 16 found Petitioner was not suitable for relief under Romero, and found Petitioner had three prior 17 serious felonies. (Id. at 11-12). Accordingly, Petitioner was sentenced to an indeterminate state 18 prison term of twenty-five years to life. (Id. at 12). 19 II. APPLICABLE LAW 20 A. AEDPA General Principles 21 A federal court’s statutory authority to issue habeas corpus relief for persons in state 22 custody is set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2254, as amended by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death 23 Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). AEDPA requires a state prisoner seeking federal habeas relief to 24 first “exhaus[t] the remedies available in the courts of the State.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A). If 25 the state courts do not adjudicate the prisoner’s federal claim “on the merits,” a de novo standard 26 of review applies in the federal habeas proceeding; if the state courts do adjudicate the claim on 27 the merits, then the AEDPA mandates a deferential, rather than de novo, review. Kernan v. 28 Hinojosa, 136 S. Ct. 1603, 1604 (2016). This deferential standard, set forth in § 2254(d), permits 1 relief on a claim adjudicated on the merits, but only if the adjudication: 2 (1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as 3 determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or 4 (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the 5 State court proceeding. 6 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). This standard is both mandatory and intentionally difficult to satisfy. 7 Sexton v. Beaudreaux, 138 S. Ct. 2555, 2558 (2018); White v. Woodall, 572 U.S. 415, 419 (2014). 8 “Clearly established federal law” consists of the governing legal principles in the 9 decisions of the United States Supreme Court when the state court issued its decision. White, 572 10 U.S. at 419. Habeas relief is appropriate only if the state court decision was “contrary to, or an 11 unreasonable application of,” that federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). A decision is “contrary 12 to” clearly established federal law if the state court either: (1) applied a rule that contradicts the 13 governing law set forth by Supreme Court case law; or (2) reached a different result from the 14 Supreme Court when faced with materially indistinguishable facts. Mitchell v. Esparza, 540 U.S. 15 12, 16 (2003). 16 A state court decision involves an “unreasonable application” of the Supreme Court’s 17 precedents if the state court correctly identifies the governing legal principle, but applies it to the 18 facts of the petitioner’s case in an objectively unreasonable manner, Brown v. Payton, 544 U.S. 19 133, 134 (2005), or “if the state court either unreasonably extends a legal principle from 20 [Supreme Court] precedent to a new context where it should not apply or unreasonably refuses to 21 extend that principle to a new context where it should apply.” Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 22 407, (2000). “A state court’s determination that a claim lacks merit precludes federal habeas 23 relief so long as fair-minded jurists could disagree on the correctness of the state court’s 24 decision.” Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 101 (2011). The petitioner must show that the 25 state court decision “was so lacking in justification that there was an error well understood and 26 comprehended in existing law beyond any possibility for fairminded disagreement.” Id. at 103. 27 When reviewing a claim under § 2254(d), any “determination of a factual issue made by a 28 State court shall be presumed to be correct[,]” and the petitioner bears “the burden of rebutting 1 the presumption of correctness by clear and convincing evidence.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1); Burt 2 v. Titlow, 571 U.S. 12, 18 (2013) (“[A] state-court factual determination is not unreasonable 3 merely because the federal habeas court would have reached a different conclusion in the first 4 instance.”) (quoting Wood v. Allen, 558 U.S. 290, 293 (2010)). 5 As discussed earlier, for the deferential § 2254(d) standard to apply there must have been 6 an “adjudication on the merits” in state court. An adjudication on the merits does not require that 7 there be an opinion from the state court explaining the state court’s reasoning. Richter, 562 U.S. 8 at 98. “When a federal claim has been presented to a state court and the state court has denied 9 relief, it may be presumed that the state court adjudicated the claim on the merits in the absence 10 of any indication or state-law procedural principles to the contrary.” Id. at 99. “The presumption 11 may be overcome when there is reason to think some other explanation for the state court’s 12 decision is more likely.” Id. at 99-100. This presumption applies whether the state court fails to 13 discuss all the claims or discusses some claims but not others. Johnson v. Williams, 568 U.S. 14 289, 293, 298-301 (2013). 15 While such a decision is an “adjudication on the merits,” the federal habeas court must 16 still determine the state court’s reasons for its decision in order to apply the deferential standard. 17 When the relevant state-court decision on the merits is not accompanied by its reasons, 18 the federal court should “look through” the unexplained decision to the last related state-court decision that does provide a relevant 19 rationale. It should then presume that the unexplained decision adopted the same reasoning. But the State may rebut the 20 presumption by showing that the unexplained affirmance relied or most likely did rely on different grounds than the lower state court’s 21 decision, such as alternative grounds for affirmance that were briefed or argued to the state supreme court or obvious in the record 22 it reviewed. 23 Wilson v. Sellers, 138 S. Ct. 1188, 1192 (2018). The federal court “looks through” the silent state 24 court decision “for a specific and narrow purpose—to identify the grounds for the higher court’s 25 decision, as AEDPA directs us to do.” Id. at 1196. 26 When . . . there is no reasoned state-court decision on the merits, the federal court “must determine what arguments or theories . . . 27 could have supported the state court’s decision; and then it must ask whether it is possible fairminded jurists could disagree that those 28 arguments or theories are inconsistent with the holding in a prior 1 decision of this Court.” Richter, 562 U.S. at 102. If such disagreement is possible, then the petitioner’s claim must be denied. 2 Ibid. 3 Sexton, 138 S. Ct. at 2558. 4 III. ANALYSIS 5 On July 20, 2017, the California Court of Appeal dismissed Petitioner’s direct appeal at 6 his request. (Doc Nos. 20-6, 20-7). Thereafter, Petitioner proceeded to file 15 state habeas 7 petitions between 2017 and 2020. (See Doc. Nos. 20-8–20-37). Respondent avers that the federal 8 Petition “appears” untimely; however, because the Court can more easily consider the Petition on 9 the merits than determine timeliness, Respondent requests that the Court “bypass the procedural 10 issue, and deny the petition on the merits.” (Doc. No. 19 at 7-8). 11 Having reviewed the record, the undersigned finds the interests of judicial economy 12 warrant the Court proceeding to an evaluation of the merits of Petition. See Flournoy v. Small, 13 681 F.3d 1000, 1004 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (“While we ordinarily resolve the issue of procedural bar 14 prior to any consideration of the merits on habeas review, we are not required to do so when a 15 petition clearly fails on the merits.”); Franklin v. Johnson, 290 F.3d 1223, 1232 (9th Cir. 2002) 16 (“[C]ourts are empowered to, and in some cases should, reach the merits of habeas petitions if 17 they are ... clearly not meritorious despite an asserted procedural bar.”); see also Lambrix v. 18 Singletary, 520 U.S. 518, 525 (1997) (noting that, in the interest of judicial economy, courts may 19 resolve easier matters where complicated procedural default issues exist). 20 A. Ground One: Three Strikes Law 21 1. Background 22 Petitioner argues that his past three strike offenses ( 1986 and 1988 noted supra) cannot be 23 used as strikes to enhance his sentence for the 2016 possession of child pornography offense, 24 because these prior offenses occurred before the enactment of the Three Strikes law in 1994. 25 (Doc. No. 9 at 7). Petitioner contends that the Three Strikes Law, “as it was written and passed 26 did not say any priors before 1994 would be considered . . . . To be exact the enacted law clearly 27 states on or after [March] 7th, 1994 would be a strike. A strike prior to this law passing cannot be 28 used as a strike for any reason if no such law existed in the 80’s to use a strike from that decade 1 where it did not exist is illegal and unconstitutional . . . .” (Id.). 2 Petitioner raised this claim in a state habeas petition, and the state superior court denied 3 the claim citing to California law because “the three strikes law does apply to convictions that 4 predate its enactment.” (Doc. No. 20-23 at 2). The state superior court also found that the three 5 strikes law did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause noting “[r]recidivist statues do not impose 6 second punishment for the fist offense in violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause.” (Id. citing 7 People v. White Eagle (1996) 48 Cal. App. 4th 1511, 1520. The California Supreme Court 8 summarily denied the claim. (Doc. No. 20-31). 9 2. Petitioner is Not Entitled to Relief on Ground One 10 To the extent Petitioner claims that the state court made an error in its determination of 11 state law, this claim is not cognizable on habeas review. Federal habeas corpus relief “does not 12 lie for errors of state law,” Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67 (1991), and this court is bound by 13 the state court’s determination based on state law, Bradshaw v. Richey, 546 U.S. 74, 76 (2005) 14 (per curiam) (“[A] state court’s interpretation of state law, including one announced on direct 15 appeal of the challenged conviction, binds a federal court sitting in habeas corpus.”). Petitioner's 16 claim that the trial court misapplied the California Three Strikes Law is no exception; it does not 17 give rise to any alleged violation of the Constitution or the laws of the United States. See Aponte 18 v. Gomez, 993 F.2d 705, 707 (9th Cir. 1993) (“We are bound by a state court's construction of its 19 own penal statutes.”); Zaragoza v. Lamarque, 145 F. App'x 572, 573 (9th Cir. 2005) (holding that 20 whether a prior conviction was a serious felony under California's Three Strikes law was “an 21 issue of state law and as such is generally not cognizable on federal habeas review”). 22 The Court notes that in rare circumstances, a misapplication of state sentencing law can be 23 “so arbitrary or capricious as to constitute an independent due process” violation. Richmond v. 24 Lewis, 506 U.S. 40, 50 (1992). However, Petitioner has not alleged facts or made argument that 25 could establish those circumstances here; and, as correctly recognized by Respondent, the 26 Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit have “uniformly held” that recidivist statutes, such as the 27 Three Strikes Law at issue here, do not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause or Double Jeopardy 28 Clause if they are “on the books at the time the [present] offense was committed.” (Doc. No. 19 1 at 9) (citing United States v. Kaluna, 192 F.3d 1188, 1199 (9th Cir. 1999)); Parke v. Raley, 506 2 U.S. 20, 27 (1992); Brown v. Mayle, 283 F.3d 1019, 1040 (9th Cir. 2002), vacated on other 3 grounds, 538 U.S. 901 (2003) (rejecting argument that Three Strikes Law violated Ex Post Facto 4 Clause because the law “count[s] as strikes offenses committed prior to Three Strikes' 5 enactment”); Crawford v. Robertson, 2019 WL 5460206, at *23-24 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 4, 2019) 6 (Petitioner’s ex post facto argument is “meritless” because the Three Strikes Law was “on the 7 books” at the time petitioner committed the instant offense); Beckwith v. Rackley, 2018 WL 8 1684338, at *10 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 18, 2018) (because the petitioner's instant conviction occurred 9 after enactment of the Three Strikes Law, petitioner’s Three Strikes sentence did not violate the 10 Ex Post Facto Clause). 11 Because the superior court’s rejection of Petitioner’s ex post facto claim was not an 12 unreasonable application of clearly established federal law as set forth by the Supreme Court nor 13 based on an unreasonable determination of the facts, Petitioner is not entitled to relief on ground 14 one. 15 B. Ground Two: Hearing on Romero Motion 16 1. Background 17 In his second ground, Petitioner claims that his due process and equal protection rights 18 were violated because he was denied a hearing on his Romero motion. (Doc. No. 9 at 8). 19 California trial courts have the discretion to dismiss prior strikes in the interest of justice under 20 California Penal Code section 1385(a). When ruling on a Romero motion, a trial court considers: 21 whether, in light of the nature and circumstances of his present felonies and prior serious and/or violent felony convictions, and the 22 particulars of his background, character, and prospects, the defendant may be deemed outside the spirit [of California’s Three 23 Strikes law], in whole or in part, and hence should be treated as though he had not previously been convicted of one or more serious 24 and/or violent felonies. 25 People v. Williams, 17 Cal. 4th 148, 150 (1998). 26 The record reveals that prior to sentencing, Petitioner filed a Romero motion seeking to 27 strike his prior convictions based on, among other things, their age, the fact that they were not 28 violent felonies, and several alleged mitigating facts, including Petitioner was 20 years old at the 1 time of his first strike, he has not suffered a serious strike offense during the last 20 years, and his 2 current offense shows a “decrease in criminality.” (Doc. No. 20-24, Ex. 3). Contrary to 3 Petitioner’s claim, the trial court considered Petitioner’s Romero motion at a hearing held on 4 November 29, 2016. At the hearing, the prosecution opposed the Romero motion, arguing that 5 the reason Petitioner had not committed the same types of offenses in the past 20 years is because 6 he has been incarcerated the entire time, it is not a victimless crime, and there is no evidence in 7 the record that defendant can be rehabilitated. (Doc. No. 20-5 at 5-6). Petitioner was granted 8 leave to address the court directly, whereupon he argued he has made “significant” improvement 9 at hospital in-treatment despite being abused and molested as a child, he now only associates with 10 people that assist in his recovery, and he “took responsibility” for his past crimes. (Doc. No. 20-5 11 at 8-10). The trial court specifically noted that the images possessed by Petitioner as “some of the 12 most disturbing pornography one could imagine,” and the court had no information that his prior 13 convictions were “less serious than other crimes of similar types.” (Id. at 11-12). After hearing 14 argument from the parties, including the Petitioner, the trial court found Petitioner was not 15 suitable for relief under Romero, and “it would be an inappropriate exercise of the court’s 16 discretion to strike two of his three strikes to make him ineligible for something less than the 25 17 to life indeterminate sentence provided by the Code.” (Id. at 12). 18 The California appellate court summarily denied this claim, noting “any further petition 19 for relief should present adequate factual and documentary evidence to support petitioner’s 20 claims, and petitioner should provide a reasonable explanation why such claims could not have 21 been presented on appeal or in an earlier writ petition.” (Doc. No. 20-25). 22 2. Petitioner is Not Entitled to Relief on Ground Two 23 As pointed out by Respondent, Petitioner provides no basis to support his claim that he 24 was denied due process and equal protection because the trial court “failed to read the motion or 25 have a hearing on it before making a decision.” (Doc. No. 19 at 9). The record demonstrates 26 Petitioner’s counsel filed a Romero motion, the motion was discussed during the bifurcated 27 hearing, and Petitioner had an opportunity to testify prior to the trial judge finding Petitioner was 28 not suitable for relief under Romero. Thus, Petitioner’s claim that his constitutional rights were 1 violated based on a failure to grant a hearing or consider his Romero motion is refuted by the 2 record. 3 Moreover, even were the Court to consider Petitioner’s claim that his federal 4 constitutional rights were somehow violated by the state court’s denial of his Romero motion, as 5 stated supra, federal habeas corpus relief “does not lie for errors of state law,” Estelle, 502 U.S. at 6 67, and this court is bound by the state court’s determination based on state law, Bradshaw, 546 7 U.S. at 76 (2005) (“[A] state court’s interpretation of state law, including one announced on direct 8 appeal of the challenged conviction, binds a federal court sitting in habeas corpus.”). Generally, 9 sentencing errors fails to present a cognizable federal habeas claim because they involve solely 10 the interpretation and application of state sentencing law. See Cacoperdo v. Demosthenes, 37 11 F.3d 504, 507 (9th Cir. 1994) (“The decision whether to impose sentences concurrently or 12 consecutively is a matter of state criminal procedure and is not within the purview of federal 13 habeas corpus.”); Watts v. Bonneville, 879 F.2d 685, 687 (9th Cir. 1989) (holding that a claim that 14 the trial court misapplied section 654 of the California Penal Code at sentencing was not 15 cognizable in a federal habeas corpus petition). 16 Thus, to the extent Petitioner contends that the trial court abused its discretion under state 17 law in considering the Romero motion at the sentencing phase of trial, his claim does not involve 18 an alleged deprivation of a federally protected right. See Brown, 283 F.3d at 1040 (challenge to 19 denial of Romero motion constitutes a state law claim that is not cognizable in a federal habeas 20 corpus action), vacated on other grounds, Mayle v. Brown, 538 U.S. 901 (2003); Covarrubias v. 21 Montgomery, 2021 WL 5990196, at *13 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 10, 2021) (“to the extent Petitioner 22 contends that the trial court abused its discretion under state law when adjudicating his Romero 23 motion, his claim is not cognizable in a federal habeas corpus action.”). Nor can Petitioner 24 refashion his state claim into a federal one simply by casting it as a due process or equal 25 protection violation. See Langford, 110 F.3d at 1389. “Petitioner has identified no due process 26 precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court that would be implicated by the wrongful denial of a 27 Romero motion, nor is the undersigned aware of any.” Blair v. Price, 2020 WL 3574269, at *7 28 1 (E.D. Cal. July 1, 2020). 2 The misapplication of state law may rise to the level of a due process violation if a 3 petitioner demonstrates the sentencing error was “so arbitrary and capricious as to constitute an 4 independent due process” violation. See Richmond, 506 U.S. at 50. Here, Petitioner alleges no 5 facts or makes no argument to establish those circumstances here. Instead, the record here 6 reflects that the trial court carefully considered the facts and arguments and properly applied state 7 law to conclude it was not appropriate to strike Petitioner’s prior convictions. Thus, there is no 8 basis to conclude that denial of Petitioner’s Romero motion, after a properly conducted hearing, 9 was in error, “let alone so arbitrary and capricious as to constitute an independent due process 10 violation.” Norwood v. Baughman, 2020 WL 2476432, at *6 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2020) (where 11 trial court considered factors relevant to Romero motion to strike prior conviction under state law, 12 “the Court cannot conclude that the trial court’s denial of Petitioner’s Romero motion was error”). 13 Because the state court’s decision was not contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, 14 clearly established Supreme Court precedent, and it was not an unreasonable determination of the 15 facts in light of the evidence presented, and indeed is factually refuted by the record, ground two 16 of the Petition, as amended, should be denied. 17 C. Ground Three: Criminal Fraud/ Sixth Amendment Violation 18 1. Background 19 In his third ground, Petitioner accuses the state of California and the district attorney’s 20 office as having “committed a federal violation of criminal fraud in a judiciary proceeding which 21 leads to an illegal sentence” because “when a deputy district attorney appears in Court for 22 arraignment they state their name and state representing the people that is an act of fraud.” (Doc. 23 No. 9 at 9). Petitioner also asserts his Sixth Amendment rights “were violated as [there] is no 24 way petitioner could reasonably face or cross-exam[ine] 20 million victims because once the 25 prosecutor states on the record he or she represents the people that become an [sic] legal 26 statement they are representing every citizen in the state instead of one individual victim.” (Id. at 27 11). 28 //// 1 2. Petitioner is Not Entitled to Relief on Ground Three 2 The undersigned finds Petitioner’s third ground completely meritless and frivolous. The 3 Court may dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory 4 or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 5 327 (1989) (a claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis in either law or fact); 6 Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990) (summary dismissal is appropriate only 7 where the allegations in the petition are vague or conclusory, palpably incredible, or patently 8 frivolous or false). The Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 8 indicate that the Court may dismiss 9 a petition for writ of habeas corpus, either on its own motion under Rule 4, pursuant to the 10 respondent’s motion to dismiss, or after an answer to the petition has been filed. 11 This claim does not set forth a meritorious legal theory. California Penal Code § 684 12 expressly requires criminal actions to be prosecuted in the name of the People. Petitioner 13 presents no legal authority for the proposition that Cal. Penal Code § 684 perpetuates some form 14 of criminal fraud, or deprives criminal defendants of any rights, including cross-examination of 15 accusing witnesses or victims. Moreover, to the extent that the claims can be said to allege any 16 “facts,” those facts are irrelevant to any conceivable basis for habeas relief. Ground three has no 17 arguable basis in law or fact and should be denied as frivolous. 18 D. Ground Four: Boykin/Tahl Rights 19 1. Background 20 In his fourth ground, Petitioner claims that “a defendant has a right to be informed of their 21 Boykin-Tahl rights and what it means and to make sure they fully understand by admitting to any 22 past priors or taking a plea as to any priors, a defendant must be properly informed”; and his 23 “Boykin-Tahl rights were violated when [P]etitioner was not informed of such rights.” (Doc. No. 24 9 at 12). As noted in the trial transcript, defense counsel requested off the record to bifurcate the 25 hearing on the priors. (Doc. No. 20-2 at 20). The trial judge confirmed on the record that the 26 issue of whether Petitioner suffered from prior convictions could be tried to the court or admitted, 27 but the jury would not decide the issue as there was a waiver of a jury trial on his priors. (Id.). 28 //// 1 2. Petitioner is Not Entitled to Relief on Ground Four 2 Under Boykin, a conviction may be unconstitutional if the defendant pled guilty without 3 waiving: (1) the right to a jury trial; (2) the right to confront adverse witnesses; and (3) advised of 4 the privilege against self-incrimination. See Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (1969); In re Tahl, 5 460 P.2d 449 (1969) (holding the same three rights must be specifically and expressly enumerated 6 and waived by the accused prior to acceptance of a guilty plea). It is somewhat unclear whether 7 Petitioner is claiming a violation of his Boykin-Tahl rights based on an alleged failure by the trial 8 court in the instant case to inform him of those rights as to his admission of prior convictions; or 9 whether he claims his sentence was impermissibly enhanced by unconstitutional prior convictions 10 because he was not informed of his rights at the time of those plea-based convictions in 1986, 11 1988, and 1997. (See Doc. No. 9 at 12-15). Regardless, both arguments are unavailing. 12 Concerning his 2016 conviction, Petitioner offers no evidence that he was not advised of 13 his right under California law to a jury trial on his priors before he waived the right; and, as noted 14 by Respondent, the issue was not preserved on appeal as Petitioner dismissed his direct appeal. 15 The record evidences the trial judge confirmed on the record that there was a waiver of a jury trial 16 as to whether Petitioner suffered the prior convictions. (Doc. No. 20-2 at 20). Moreover, 17 regardless of any waiver, the United States Supreme Court has not yet decided whether the 18 procedural protections of Boykin extend varied trial rights to a defendant as to prior convictions. 19 (Doc. No. 19 at 10); see Adams v. Peterson, 968 F.2d 835, 841 n.4 (9th Cir. 1992) (recognizing 20 the circuits are split on this issue and agreeing that only the trial court need determine whether the 21 defendant knowingly and voluntarily agreed to the stipulation of the fact of a prior conviction); 22 Dombrowski v. Mingo, 543 F.3d 1270, 1276 (11th Cir. 2008) (noting there is no clearly 23 established Supreme Court precedent requiring sentencing courts to either determine that a 24 defendant knows and understands the consequences of his admission to prior convictions for 25 sentence enhancement purposes); Davis v. Johnson, 2020 WL 3980115, at *6 (C.D. Cal. May 28, 26 2020) (“The rule in Boykin, however, does not extend the same constitutional protection to 27 criminal defendants who may face sentencing enhancements after admitting to prior convictions). 28 Thus, to the extent Petitioner is arguing that he was not advised of his rights before admitting his 1 prior convictions, the Court has no basis to conclude that any alleged violation of this right by the 2 trial court was either contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme 3 Court law. 4 Additionally, Petitioner peripherally argues his expired state-court plea based conviction 5 are illegal as his pleas were not knowing and voluntary. To the extent Petitioner argues that his 6 current sentence was enhanced on the basis of allegedly unconstitutional prior convictions in 7 1986, 1988, and 1997 due to inadequate Boykin/Tahl admonitions, he also fails to state a 8 cognizable claim for relief. (See Doc. No. 9 at 14-15, 19 (“Petitioner contends that his 1986, 88, 9 and 97 pleas are void based on [sic] it violates petitioner’s due process rights and petitioner could 10 not and did not make an intelligent and voluntary plea agreement.”)). In Lackawanna County 11 Dist. Atty. v. Coss, 532 U.S. 394 (2001), the United States Supreme Court considered whether a § 12 2254 habeas prisoner could collaterally attack an earlier state conviction used to enhance a 13 sentence for a later state conviction. The Court held: 14 once a state conviction is no longer open to direct or collateral attack in its own right because the defendant failed to pursue those 15 remedies while they were available (or because the defendant did so unsuccessfully), the conviction may be regarded as conclusively 16 valid. If that conviction is later used to enhance a criminal sentence, the defendant generally may not challenge the enhanced 17 sentence through a petition under § 2254 on the ground that the prior conviction was unconstitutionally obtained. 18 Id. at 403-04 (internal citations omitted). Based on the record before the Court, 19 Petitioner’s 1986, 1988, and 1997 convictions are no longer open to direct or collateral attack in 20 state court. Petitioner does not offer, nor does the Court discern, any evidence that Petitioner 21 filed a direct appeal of these convictions, all of which are more than twenty years old. The Court 22 notes an exception to Lackawanna may exist where (1) in violation of the Sixth Amendment, a 23 court failed to appoint counsel in the prior proceeding, or (2) defendant obtains compelling 24 evidence that he is actually innocent of the crime for which he was convicted, and could not have 25 uncovered such evidence in a timely manner. Id. at 404-05; see also Custis v. United States, 511 26 U.S. 485, 492-93 (1994) (with the exception of convictions obtained in violation of the right to 27 counsel, a defendant has no constitutional right to collaterally attack the validity of previous state 28 1 convictions that are used to enhance his federal sentence under the ACCA). Petitioner’s 2 challenge fails to satisfy either of these criteria. He acknowledges that he was afforded a public 3 defender in all of his prior cases; and there is no indication that the court refused to rule on 4 Petitioner’s properly presented challenge to a prior conviction, or that he uncovered new 5 “compelling evidence” of innocence that could not have been timely discovered. (See Doc. No. 9 6 at 14-15). Accordingly, to the extent Petitioner is seeking review of his prior plea-based 7 convictions, he is not entitled to federal habeas relief. See Diaz v. Biter, 2015 WL 2159478, at *3 8 (E.D. Cal. May 7, 2015) (“A Petitioner cannot simply revisit prior state court convictions ad 9 infinitum whenever he runs afoul of the law and his prior convictions are used to enhance his later 10 sentence.”). Furthermore, Petitioner is no longer in custody on these prior convictions for 11 purposes of habeas relief, even if they were used to enhance his current sentence. Alaska v. 12 Wright, 141 S.Ct. 1467, 1468 (2021) (a habeas petition is no longer “in custody” on an expired 13 conviction merely because it may, and did, enhance the sentence for a subsequent crime). Thus, 14 Petitioner cannot challenge these earlier expired state plea-based convictions. 15 Because the state court’s decision was not contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, 16 clearly established Supreme Court precedent, and it was not an unreasonable determination of the 17 facts in light of the evidence presented, ground four should be denied. 18 D. Ground Five: Cumulative Error 19 1. Background 20 As his fifth and final ground, Petitioner reiterates “he is being imprisoned wrongly due to 21 an illegal sentence he was given based on grounds 1 through 5 which are inclusive.” (Doc. No. 9 22 at 13). Liberally construed, Petitioner argues that the cumulative effect of the each of the 23 aforementioned grounds warrants habeas relief. 24 2. Petitioner is Not Entitled to Relief on Ground Five 25 “Cumulative error applies where, although no single trial error examined in isolation is 26 sufficiently prejudicial to warrant reversal, the cumulative effect of multiple errors [has] still 27 prejudice[d] a defendant.” Cook v. Kernan, 801 F. App'x 474, 477 (9th Cir. 2020)(internal 28 quotations and citations omitted). The cumulative error, however, “must render the trial and 1 sentencing fundamentally unfair.” Id. (citations omitted). Absent a finding of error of the 2 preceding grounds, the court cannot find cumulative error. Because the undersigned finds no 3 alleged errors by the trial court and no merit to grounds one-four, the undersigned concludes 4 Petitioner cannot show his conviction and sentencing was fundamentally unfair. Thus, ground 5 five is without merit and should be denied. 6 IV. CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABIILTY 7 A petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute right to appeal a district 8 court’s denial of a petition; he may appeal only in limited circumstances. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253; 9 Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003). Rule 11 Governing § 2254 Cases requires a 10 district court to issue or deny a certificate of appealability when entering a final order adverse to a 11 petitioner. See also Ninth Circuit Rule 22-1(a); United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268, 1270 (9th 12 Cir. 1997). A certificate of appealability will not issue unless a petitioner makes “a substantial 13 showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). This standard requires 14 the petitioner to show that “jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s resolution of 15 his constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to 16 deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 327; accord Slack v. 17 McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Here, petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the 18 denial of a constitutional right. Thus, the undersigned recommends that the court decline to issue 19 a certificate of appealability. 20 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 21 The Clerk of Court is directed shall assign this case to a district judge for the purposes of 22 reviewing these findings and recommendations. 23 Further, it is RECOMMENDED: 24 1. Petitioner be denied all relief on his amended petition. (Doc. No. 9). 25 2. Petitioner be denied a certificate of appealability. 26 NOTICE TO PARTIES 27 These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States district judge 28 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen (14) 1 | days after being served with these findings and recommendations, a party may file written 2 | objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 3 | Findings and Recommendations.” Parties are advised that failure to file objections within the 4 | specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 5 | 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 6 Dated: _ August 30, 2022 Kobo Zh. fare Hack 8 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 17