Alonso v. Ryan et al

Filing 102

ORDER: The Report and Recommendation 87 is accepted. The objections 98 are overruled. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment denying and dismissing the Amended Petition, with prejudice. IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, in the event Petitioner files an appeal, the Court denies issuance of a certificate of appealability because dismissal of portions of the petition is based on a plain procedural bar and jurists would not find this Court's procedural ruling debatable, and Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Signed by Senior Judge James A Teilborg on 3/08/2018. (REK)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Christopher Alonso,
Petitioner,

10
11

ORDER

v.

12

No. CV-16-02143-PHX-JAT

Charles L Ryan, et al.,

13

Respondents.

14
15

Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas

16

Corpus. The Magistrate Judge to whom this case was assigned issued a Report and

17

Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that the Amended Petition be denied. (Doc.

18

87). Petitioner filed objections to the R&R. (Doc. 98).

19

I.

Review

20

A.

Review of R&R

21

This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or

22

recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). It is “clear that

23

the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de

24

novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d

25

1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263

26

F.Supp.2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (“Following Reyna-Tapia, this Court concludes

27

that de novo review of factual and legal issues is required if objections are made, ‘but not

28

otherwise.’”); Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Ctr. v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 589 F.3d

1

1027, 1032 (9th Cir. 2009) (the district court “must review de novo the portions of the

2

[Magistrate Judge=s] recommendations to which the parties object.”). District courts are

3

not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an

4

objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (emphasis added); see also 28

5

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (“the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of

6

the [report and recommendation] to which objection is made.”).

7
8

As indicated above, Petitioner has now filed objections to the R&R. Accordingly,
the Court will review the portions of the R&R to which there is an objection de novo.

9

B.

Review of State Court Decisions

10

The Petition in this case was filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 because Petitioner is

11

incarcerated based on a state conviction. With respect to any claims that Petitioner

12

exhausted before the state courts, under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2254(d)(1) and (2) this Court must

13

deny the Petition on those claims unless “a state court decision is contrary to, or involved

14

an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law”1 or was based on an

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

unreasonable determination of the facts. See Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 71 (2003).
Further, this Court must presume the correctness of the state court’s factual findings
regarding a petitioner’s claims. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1); Ortiz v. Stewart, 149 F.3d 923,
936 (9th Cir. 1998). Additionally, “[a]n application for a writ of habeas corpus may be
denied on the merits, notwithstanding the failure of the applicant to exhaust the remedies
available in the courts of the State.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2).
II.

Factual Background
The R&R recounts the factual and procedural background of this case at pages 2–

7. Other than in the context of specific legal arguments discussed below, neither party
objects generally to this recounting; accordingly, the Court accepts and adopts it.

25
26
27
28

1

Further, in applying “Federal law” the state courts only need to act in
accordance with Supreme Court case law. See Carey v. Musladin, 549 U.S. 70, 74
(2006).

-2-

1

III.

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

2

The Amended Petition (Doc. 5) raises thirteen grounds for relief. Each of the

3

thirteen grounds for relief are premised upon a retroactive change in Arizona law (SB

4

1449), which altered the burden of proof for self-defense claims. The R&R finds that

5

Petitioner’s claims are technically exhausted but procedurally defaulted due to

6

Petitioner’s failure to appropriately raise his SB 1449 self-defense claims on direct appeal

7

or during post-conviction relief proceedings. The R&R then finds that Petitioner’s claims

8

of ineffective assistance of counsel do not excuse the procedural default. Likewise, the

9

R&R finds the default is not excused by a demonstration of a “fundamental miscarriage

10

of justice” because Petitioner failed to demonstrate actual innocence. This Court agrees

11

that Petitioner’s claims are procedurally defaulted without excuse. Finally, under a merits

12

review, the R&R concludes that Petitioner’s self-defense claims fail as a matter of federal

13

law and this Court agrees.

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

IV.

Petitioner’s Claims are Procedurally Defaulted
A.

Exhaustion and Procedural Default

A district court must reject Petitions for Writs of Habeas Corpus if a petitioner
does not exhaust state remedies for his federal claims. Castille v. Peoples, 489 U.S. 346,
349 (1989) (citing Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 (1982)). A petitioner satisfies this
requirement if he “fairly presents” the federal claim to the state courts. Id. at 351.
Procedural default occurs when a petitioner has never presented a federal habeas claim in
state court and is now barred from doing so by the state's procedural rules, including rules
regarding waiver and the preclusion of claims. See Castille, 489 U.S. at 351–52; Johnson
v. Lewis, 929 F.2d 460, 462 (9th Cir. 1991). Procedural default also occurs when a
petitioner did present a claim to the state courts, but the state courts did not address the
merits of the claim because the petitioner failed to follow a state procedural rule,
including rules regarding waiver and the preclusion of claims. See, e.g., Ylst v.
Nunnemaker, 501 U.S. 797, 802 (1991); Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 727–28
(1991); Ellis v. Armenakis, 222 F.3d 627, 632 (9th Cir. 2000); Szabo v. Walls, 313 F.3d
-3-

1

392, 395 (7th Cir. 2002).

2

The R&R finds that Petitioner’s claims are technically exhausted but procedurally

3

defaulted because of Petitioner’s failure to appropriately raise his SB 1449 self-defense

4

claims on direct appeal or during his post-conviction relief proceedings. (Doc. 87 at 10–

5

11). Petitioner objects to the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that his claims are

6

procedurally defaulted because Petitioner claims he properly raised the SB 1449 issues in

7

his state habeas corpus petition. (Doc. 98 at 14–15). In his objection Petitioner relies on

8

State v. Manning to argue that, under Arizona law, issues not raised on direct appeal or

9

during Rule 32 post-conviction relief proceedings may be raised independently during a

10

state habeas corpus proceeding if the “post-conviction attacks” are not specified under

11

Rule 32. (Doc. 98 at 14).

12

In State v. Manning, the Arizona Court of Appeals held that a “challenge to a

13

parole revocation is not within the scope of amended Rule 32.” 143 Ariz. 139, 140 (App.

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1984). In reaching its holding, the Arizona Court of Appeals explained that Rule 32 was
amended in 1975 and the amendment removed certain language concerning probation
and parole. Id. After holding that parole revocation was not within the scope of Rule 32,
the court concluded its opinion by stating “if a person in such circumstances does not
assert a specific ground designated by Rule 32 . . . then his claim falls outside the scope
of a petition for post-conviction relief and his remedy is to file a petition for writ of
habeas corpus.” Id. at 141. However, unlike Manning, the instant case concerns the
passage of SB 1449 and its retroactive effect. A new law, like SB 1449, would arguably
fall directly under Rule 32.1(g) as a “significant change in the law that, if applied to the
defendant's case, would probably overturn the defendant's conviction or sentence[.]”
Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.1(g). Moreover, Petitioner’s constitutional and jurisdictional claims
related to the enactment of SB 1449, likewise, fall under Rule 32.1(a) and Rule 32.1(b).
See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.1(a), (b) (where grounds for relief include “[t]he conviction or
the sentence was in violation of the Constitution of the United States or of the State of
Arizona” and “[t]he court was without jurisdiction to render judgment or to impose
-4-

1

sentence”). Therefore, the holding in Manning is wholly inapplicable to the instant case.

2

Accordingly, because Petitioner inappropriately raised his SB 1449 claims in his

3

state habeas corpus proceedings and was procedurally barred from raising the claims

4

during his Rule 32 post-conviction relief proceedings, Petitioner’s claims are technically

5

exhausted but procedurally defaulted.

6

B.

7

Federal habeas relief based on procedurally defaulted claims are barred unless the

8

petitioner can demonstrate: (1) a fundamental miscarriage of justice will occur if the

9

Court does not consider the merits of the claim, or (2) cause and actual prejudice to

10

excuse the default of the claim. See House v. Bell, 547 U.S. 518 (2006). “Cause” is a

11

legitimate excuse for the petitioner's procedural default of the claim and “prejudice” is

12

actual harm resulting from the alleged constitutional violation. See Thomas v. Lewis, 945

13

F.2d 1119, 1123 (9th Cir. 1991). To demonstrate cause, a petitioner must show the

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Excusing Procedural Default

existence of some external factor which impeded his efforts to comply with the state's
procedural rules. See Vickers v. Stewart, 144 F.3d 613, 617 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez–
Villareal v. Lewis, 80 F.3d 1301, 1305 (9th Cir. 1996). To establish prejudice, the
petitioner must show that the underlying alleged constitutional error worked to his actual
and substantial disadvantage, infecting his entire trial with constitutional violations. See
Vickers, 144 F.3d at 617; Correll v. Stewart, 137 F.3d 1404, 1415–16 (9th Cir. 1998).
Establishing prejudice requires a petitioner to prove that, “but for” the alleged
constitutional violations, there is a reasonable probability he would not have been
convicted of the same crimes. See Manning v. Foster, 224 F.3d 1129, 1135–36 (9th Cir.
2000); Ivy v. Caspari, 173 F.3d 1136, 1141 (8th Cir. 1999). Although both cause and
prejudice must be shown to excuse a procedural default, the Court need not examine the
existence of prejudice if the petitioner fails to establish cause. See Engle v. Isaac, 456
U.S. 107, 134 n. 43 (1982); Thomas, 945 F.2d at 1123 n. 10.
i.

Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

Attorney error is an objective external factor providing cause for excusing a
-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

procedural default only if that error amounted to a deprivation of the constitutional right
to counsel. See Edwards v. Carpenter, 529 U.S. 446, 451 (2000). An error amounting to
constitutionally ineffective assistance is “imputed to the State” and is therefore external
to the prisoner. See Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478, 488 (1986). Accordingly, “in
proceedings for which the Constitution does not guarantee the assistance of counsel at all,
attorney error cannot provide cause to excuse a default.” Davila v. Davis, 137 S. Ct.
2058, 2065 (2017).
The R&R finds that Petitioner does not have a substantial claim of ineffective
assistance of trial counsel because trial counsel followed Arizona law at the time of trial
and Petitioner cannot prove prejudice. Additionally, the R&R finds that Petitioner’s claim
of ineffective assistance of appellate and post-conviction relief (“PCR”) counsel likewise
does not excuse procedural default because Petitioner’s right to appellate and PCR
counsel is not constitutionally guaranteed. This Court agrees.
a.

Ineffective Assistance of Trial Counsel

The R&R concludes that: (1) Petitioner failed to demonstrate that any ineffective
assistance of trial counsel was substantial and (2) Petitioner failed to demonstrate
prejudice. Thus, the R&R finds that Petitioner’s default is not excused by ineffective
assistance of trial counsel. (Doc. 87 at 13–20). Petitioner objects to this finding, arguing
that because the sentencing phase of the trial was not complete until after the enactment
of SB 1449, his trial counsel’s performance was deficient for failure to move for a
mistrial prior to sentencing. (Doc. 98 at 17–19). However, contrary to Petitioner’s
objections, the R&R was careful to review trial counsel’s conduct during the actual trial,
as well as post-trial/pre-sentencing. (Doc. 87 at 13–20). The R&R finds that Petitioner’s
counsel was not ineffective during trial for failing to predict a change in law (Doc. 87 at
14–15), and this Court agrees. Additionally, the R&R finds that Petitioner’s counsel was
not ineffective during the post-trial/pre-sentencing (Doc. 87 at 15–20) phase by applying
a two-part test from Wilson v. Henry, to determine whether prejudice exists under
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), for failure to file a motion. Wilson v.
-6-

1
2
3
4
5

Henry, 185 F.3d 986, 990 (9th Cir. 1999) (“To show prejudice under Strickland from
failure to file a motion, [Petitioner] must show that (1) had his counsel filed the motion, it
is reasonable that the trial court would have granted it as meritorious, and (2) had the
motion been granted, it is reasonable that there would have been an outcome more
favorable to him.”).

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

As part of its analysis under the Henry test, the R&R reviews the evidence
presented and the pertinent provisions of the jury instructions. Here, the jury was
instructed that “[e]ven though a person is justified in threatening or using physical force
or deadly physical force against another, if in doing so such person recklessly injures or
recklessly kills an innocent third person, the justification afforded is unavailable in a
prosecution for the reckless injury or reckless killing of the innocent third person.” (Doc.
65-8, Ex. UU, at 208). The R&R reviews testimony from Mark Hernandez, Phillip
Hernandez, Carlos Galindo, and Dianna Murillo, and based on that testimony concludes
that Petitioner’s conduct was sufficiently reckless that the justification of self-defense
was negated by Petitioner’s reckless conduct. (Doc. 87 at 16–20). Consequently, the
R&R finds, and this Court agrees, that Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable
probability of a different outcome if the burden of proving self-defense switched to the
prosecution, thus, Petitioner failed to establish prejudice under Strickland. (Doc. 87 at
20).
b.

Ineffective Assistance of Appellate and PCR Counsel

It is not clear whether Petitioner actually objects to the R&R’s findings that
ineffective assistance of appellate counsel and ineffective assistance of post-conviction
counsel do not excuse procedural default. Nevertheless, this Court holds that the R&R
was correct in its findings.
1.

Failure to Argue the Effects of SB 1449

In “proceedings[,] for which the Constitution does not guarantee the assistance of
counsel at all, attorney error cannot provide cause to excuse a default.” Davila v. Davis,
137 S. Ct. at 2066. In Coleman v. Thompson, the Supreme Court held that attorney error
-7-

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

committed in the course of state post-conviction proceedings—for which the Constitution
does not guarantee the right to counsel—cannot supply cause to excuse a procedural
default that occurs in those proceedings. Coleman, 501 U.S. at 757. Additionally, in
Davila v. Davis, the Supreme Court further clarified that appellate counsel is not
constitutionally guaranteed, and similarly cannot excuse procedural default. 137 S. Ct. at
2065. Therefore, the R&R is correct that Petitioner’s claims of ineffective assistance of
appellate counsel for failure to argue the effects of SB 1449 and claims of ineffective
assistance of PCR counsel for failing to argue the effects of SB 1449 would not excuse
the procedural default.

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2.

Failure to Argue Ineffective-Assistance-of-Trial-

Counsel
The Supreme Court announced a narrow exception to the Coleman rule in
Martinez v. Ryan, holding that where post-conviction counsel fails to raise ineffectiveassistance-of-trial counsel as a claim—in states where PCR is the first opportunity to
make such a claim—a Petitioner seeking habeas relief is not procedurally barred from
review. Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1 (2012). Under Martinez, a petitioner may establish
cause for the procedural default of an ineffective assistance claim “by demonstrating two
things: (1) ‘counsel in the initial review collateral proceeding, where the claim should
have been raised, was ineffective under the standards of Strickland . . .’ and (2) ‘the
underlying ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claim is a substantial one, which is to
say that the prisoner must demonstrate that the claim has some merit.’” Cook v. Ryan,
688 F.3d 598, 607 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Martinez, 566 U.S. at 14).
The R&R finds that, even under this exception, Petitioner failed to demonstrate
that Petitioner’s PCR counsel was ineffective because the underlying ineffectiveassistance-of-trial-counsel claim was not substantial (Doc. 87 at 13), and this Court
agrees. As discussed above, because Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable
probability of a different outcome if the burden of proving self-defense switched to the
prosecution, Petitioner failed to establish prejudice under Strickland, and the ineffective-8-

1

assistance-of-trial-counsel claim is not substantial as required by Martinez.2

2

ii.

3
4
5
6
7

Fundamental Miscarriage of Justice- Actual Innocence

A federal court may review the merits of a procedurally defaulted claim if the
petitioner demonstrates that failure to consider the merits of that claim will result in a
“fundamental miscarriage of justice.” Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 327 (1995). A
“fundamental miscarriage of justice” occurs when “‘a constitutional violation has
probably resulted in the conviction of one who is actually innocent.’” Id. (citing Murray,

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

477 U.S. at 496). Petitioner does not object to the R&R’s finding that Petitioner’s
procedural default is not overcome by a showing of actual innocence (Doc. 87 at 20–21);
therefore, this Court accepts the R&R’s analysis.
V.

Merits Review
Under a merits review, the R&R concludes that Petitioner’s self-defense claims

fail as a matter of federal law. (Doc. 87 at 25). In his Amended Petition (Doc. 5),
Petitioner argues he was wrongfully convicted because the burden of proof at his jury
trial required him to prove self-defense by a preponderance of evidence, in violation of
the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments. The R&R finds that because the
Constitution does not prohibit states from requiring defendants to prove self-defense,

19

Petitioner’s claim that the State improperly required him to prove self-defense is not

20

cognizable on habeas review. Petitioner objects by arguing that the reasoning in support

21

of the finding was erroneous. (Doc. 98 at 16-17). This Court disagrees with Petitioner.

22

A.

23

A federal court may not grant a writ of habeas corpus to a state prisoner on a claim

24

adjudicated on the merits in state court proceedings unless the state court reached a

25

decision contrary to clearly established federal law, or one involving an unreasonable

26
27
28

Law

2

According to the Supreme Court in Davila v. Davis, the Martinez exception only
extended to ineffective assistance of post-conviction counsel for failing to argue
ineffective assistance of trial counsel, not a failure of post-conviction counsel to argue
ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. Davila, 137 S. Ct. at 2063. Therefore, such a
claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel would also not excuse Petitioner’s
procedural default.
-9-

1

application of clearly established federal law, or unless the state court decision was based

2

on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the

3

state court proceeding. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); Mitchell v. Esparza, 540 U.S. 12, 14

4

(2003).
A state court's decision is “contrary to” our clearly established
law if it applies a rule that contradicts the governing law set
forth in our cases or if it confronts a set of facts that are
materially indistinguishable from a decision of this Court and
nevertheless arrives at a result different from our precedent.

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

Mitchell, 540 U.S. at 14 (internal citations and quotations omitted).
Under habeas corpus review, after determining whether that the decision was
contrary to federal law, the next inquiry is “whether the error ‘had substantial and
injurious effect or influence,’ ” and whether the error resulted in “actual prejudice.” Fry
v. Pliler, 551 U.S. 112 (2007), Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 638 (1993) (quoting
Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 766 (1946) and United States v. Lane, 474 U.S.
438, 449 (1986), respectively).

15

B.

16

Here, Petitioner argues that a retroactive change in state law regarding the burden

17

of proof for self-defense violated his rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth

18

Amendments. Petitioner’s argument is essentially three-fold: (1) that Petitioner was

19

deprived of a fair trial because the jury received incorrect jury instructions, (2) Petitioner

20

was denied his right to the effective assistance of counsel, and (3) Petitioner was deprived

21

of fair trial because the burden of proof under the former law was unconstitutional.

22

Analysis

i.

Jury Instructions

23

The R&R concludes that the retroactive effect of SB 1449 was an issue of state

24

law rather than federal law and is therefore not cognizable under habeas review; this

25

Court agrees. Here, when the jury deliberated, the jury instructions reflected the correct

26

law at the time. Petitioner’s claim regarding incorrect jury instructions surfaced only

27

because of SB 1449’s retroactive effect. This retroactive law was solely the product of

28

the Arizona legislature and the enforcement of that law falls within the purview of the

- 10 -

1

state, not the federal courts. See La Rue v. McCarthy, 833 F.2d 140, 142 (9th Cir. 1987)

2

(“The retroactivity of a state change of law is a state question and the federal Constitution

3

has no voice upon the subject.”)

4

Additionally, even if the instructions were considered incorrect, the mere fact of a

5

state law error in jury instructions is an insufficient basis for federal habeas relief. See

6

Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 71–72 (1991). Incorrect jury instructions may provide a

7

basis for obtaining habeas relief only where “‘the ailing instruction by itself so infected

8

the entire trial that the resulting conviction violates due process.’ ” Estelle, 502 U.S. at 72

9

(quoting Cupp v. Naughten, 414 U.S. 141, 147 (1973)). Thus, in order to grant habeas

10

relief on the basis of incorrect jury instructions, this Court must find that: (1) the incorrect

11

instructions created constitutional error and (2) the constitutional error was not harmless.

12

See Brecht, 507 U.S. at 637–38; Estelle, 502 U.S. at 72; Evanchyk v. Stewart, 340 F.3d

13

933, 939 (9th Cir. 2003). To determine whether an error is harmless, the Court must

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

assess whether the error resulted in “actual prejudice.” See Brecht, 507 U.S. at 637–38.
The instruction at issue here did not so infect the trial as to amount to a due
process violation. On the contrary, here the jury was also instructed that “[e]ven though a
person is justified in threatening or using physical force or deadly physical force against
another, if in doing so such person recklessly injures or recklessly kills an innocent third
person, the justification afforded is unavailable in a prosecution for the reckless injury or
reckless killing of the innocent third person.” (Doc. 65-8, Ex. UU, at 208). Petitioner shot
an AK-47 into traffic and killed an innocent bystander; and as discussed above, such
conduct was sufficiently reckless that the justification of self-defense was negated.
Accordingly, because the self-defense justification was negated, a retroactive change in
law regarding the burden of proof of a self-defense claim would not have affected
Petitioner’s conviction. Therefore, any error that may or may not have existed did not
result in actual prejudice against Petitioner and was therefore harmless.
ii.

Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

Petitioner’s claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel likewise fails on its
- 11 -

1

merits.3 Under Strickland v. Washington, an ineffective assistance claim has two

2

components: (1) a petitioner must show that counsel's performance was deficient, and (2)

3

that the deficiency prejudiced the defense. 466 U.S. at 687. In order to show prejudice,

4

Petitioner “must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's

5

unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. A

6

reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the

7

outcome.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694. Here, Petitioner’s actions resulted in the reckless

8

killing of a third-party and, as discussed above, Petitioner failed to demonstrate a

9

reasonable probability of a different outcome if the burden of proving self-defense

10

switched to the prosecution; thus, Petitioner failed to establish prejudice under Strickland.

11

Further, as discussed above, counsel’s performance was not deficient because the jury

12

instructions were correct at the time of trial.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

iii.

Burden of Proof

The R&R concludes that Petitioner’s claims were not cognizable under habeas
review because the Supreme Court has recognized that requiring a defendant to bear the
burden of proving an affirmative defense does not violate the Constitution, and this Court
agrees. See Martin v. Ohio, 480 U.S. 228 (1987) (holding that jury instructions which
placed on the defendant the burden of proving self-defense by a preponderance of
evidence did not violate due process where jury was instructed that it must find that state
had proved all elements of crime beyond a reasonable doubt); see also Smith v. United
States, 568 U.S. 106, 113 (2013) (“The usual rule that a defendant bears the burden of
proving affirmative defenses is justified by a compelling, commonsense intuition[.]”);
Gonzalez v. Ryan, 551 F. App’x. 909, 913-14 (9th Cir. 2014) (holding that states do not
violate the Constitution if they place the burden of proof for self-defense on the

26
3

27
28

Petitioner’s claims concerning ineffective assistance of appellate and PCR
counsel are not cognizable under federal habeas review because the Supreme Court has
held that, generally, there is no constitutional right to the effective assistance of appellate
or PCR counsel. See Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. at 752 and Davila v. Davis, 137 S.
Ct. at 2065.
- 12 -

1

defendant). Thus, Petitioner’s challenge to the jury instructions as unconstitutional, under

2

the former version of the law, also fails on the merits.

3

VI.

Conclusion

4

Based on the foregoing,

5

IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 87) is accepted.

6

The objections (Doc. 98) are overruled. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment

7

denying and dismissing the Amended Petition, with prejudice.

8

IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing

9

Section 2254 Cases, in the event Petitioner files an appeal, the Court denies issuance of a

10

certificate of appealability because dismissal of portions of the petition is based on a plain

11

procedural bar and jurists would not find this Court’s procedural ruling debatable, see

12

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000), and Petitioner has not made a substantial

13

showing of the denial of a constitutional right, see 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).

14

Dated this 8th day of March, 2018.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

- 13 -