(HC) Becker v. Anglea ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSEPH BECKER, No. 2:19-cv-00013 KJM GGH P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 HUNTER ANGLEA, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this application for a writ of habeas 18 corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as 19 provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On October 14, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which 21 were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the 22 findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. ECF No. 38. Petitioner 23 has filed objections to the findings and recommendations. ECF No. 39. 24 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 25 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having reviewed the file, the court finds the 26 findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the proper analysis. 27 The court writes separately to address one of petitioner’s objections, namely, that his first 28 claim for relief concerning the sufficiency of the evidence was exhausted as to more than the 1 | single element discussed in the findings and recommendations. Petitioner was convicted of 2 | making a criminal threat against prison staff. ECF No. 25 at 1. The state criminal charge requires 3 || proof of five elements. ECF No. 38 at 12-13 (quoting ECF No. 32-14 at 6-10). The magistrate 4 || judge found petitioner had only exhausted state court remedies with respect to a challenge to the 5 || sufficiency of evidence to support one of the elements. /d. at 5-8. Petitioner objects, contending 6 || he adequately raised a challenge to the sufficiency of evidence relied on to support additional 7 || elements of the criminal threat charge in a motion filed in the state court of appeal that was 8 | appended to his July 2, 2018 state Supreme Court habeas petition. The court need not resolve the 9 || question of whether petitioner adequately presented a complete sufficiency of evidence claim to 10 || the California Supreme Court, separate from his ineffective assistance of counsel claim, in order 11 || to deny the claim on the merits. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2). Review of the evidence adduced at 12 | trial, as set forth in the state court of appeal opinion and quoted in the findings and 13 || recommendations, see id. at 3-5 (quoting People v. Becker, No. C080909, 2018 WL 897499, at 14 | *1-2 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 15, 2018)), shows there was sufficient evidence to support each element 15 || of the criminal threat charge for which petitioner was convicted. For this reason, petitioner’s 16 | sufficiency of the evidence claim is denied. 17 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 18 1. The findings and recommendations filed October 14, 2020 are adopted as modified by 19 || this order; 20 2. The first amended habeas petition (ECF No. 19) is denied; and 21 3. The court declines to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in 28 U.S.C. 22 | § 2253. 23 || DATED: May 23, 2022. 24 25 l tie / ¢ os CHIEF ONT] ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 27 28