Alejandro Salas v. Foulk
Filing
33
ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS by Judge Andrew J. Guilford for Report and Recommendation (Issued) 26 . IT IS ORDERED that: (1) the Petition is DENIED; and (2) Judgment shall be entered dismissing this action with prejudice. (ec)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
ALEJANDRO SALAS,
12
13
14
15
Petitioner
v.
FOULK, Warden,
Respondent.
Case No. CV 14-8152-AG (GJS)
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE
JUDGE
16
17
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition (“Petition”) and
18
all pleadings, motions, and other documents filed in this action, the Report and
19
Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge (“Report”), and Petitioner’s
20
Objections to the Report. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Fed. R. Civ. P.
21
72(b), the Court has conducted a de novo review of those portions of the Report to
22
which objections have been stated.
23
In his Objections, Petitioner raises two new claims and arguments not previously
24
presented in this action. A district court has discretion, but is not required, to
25
consider evidence or arguments presented for the first time in objections to a report
26
and recommendation. See Brown v. Roe, 279 F.3d 742, 744-45 (9th Cir. 2002);
27
United States v. Howell, 231 F.3d 615, 621-22 (9th Cir. 2000). The Court has
28
exercised its discretion with respect to these new matters as follows.
1
In connection with his discussion of Grounds One, Four, and Six in the
2
Objections, Petitioner argues that error was committed within the meaning of the
3
California Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Sanchez, 63 Cal 4th 665 (2016).
4
These habeas claims stem from the admission of third party testimony indicating
5
that Petitioner’s wife was having an affair with a member of the rival gang, and the
6
gang expert’s response to the prosecutor’s hypothetical question premised on such
7
an event. Petitioner asserts that, because the gang expert lacked personal knowledge
8
that the affair had occurred, then under Sanchez, his testimony in response to a
9
hypothetical premised on such an affair, including regarding its likely effect on gang
10
11
members, was impermissible.
Petitioner misapprehends the meaning of the Sanchez decision. In Sanchez, the
12
California Supreme Court considered when gang experts may rely on matters based
13
upon out-of-court statements, i.e., hearsay, in forming expert opinions for purposes
14
of the Confrontation Clause. The state high court concluded that a Confrontation
15
Clause violation may occur when an expert relies on testimonial hearsay and treats it
16
as true and accurate for purposes of formulating his or her expert opinion, absent a
17
showing of unavailability and a prior opportunity for cross-examination. 63 Cal. 4th
18
at 686. The California Supreme Court, however, expressly, carved out from its
19
holding expert opinions in response to hypothetical questions premised on case-
20
specific facts that were established at trial. Id. at 684-85. As discussed in the
21
Report, various witnesses testified to their percipient knowledge of events indicating
22
the affair. The prosecutor based the hypothetical to the gang expert on such witness
23
testimony. Both the hypothetical and the expert’s response were permissible under
24
Sanchez. Accordingly, regardless of any retroactivity, exhaustion, and AEDPA
25
issues involved in Petitioner raising a claim based on a state law decision that issued
26
years after his conviction was final, his Sanchez argument fails on its face.
27
Petitioner also relies on another California Supreme Court decision that issued
28
after his conviction was final – People v. Chiu, 59 Cal. 4th 155 (2014). Under Chiu,
2
1
a defendant may not be convicted of first degree premeditated murder under the
2
theory that he aided and abetted a non-murder target crime and the resulting first
3
degree murder was the natural and probable consequence of that target crime.
4
Instead, such aiding and abetting liability must be based on direct aiding and
5
abetting principles. Id. at 158-59. In the Objections, Petitioner raises a new claim
6
that Chiu instructional error occurred at his trial.
7
Petitioner’s new Chiu claim is unexhausted and not properly raised for the first
8
time in Objections. See Greenhow v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 863 F.2d
9
633, 638-39 (9th Cir. 1988) (“allowing parties to litigate fully their case before the
10
magistrate and, if unsuccessful, to change their strategy and present a different
11
theory to the district court would frustrate the purpose of the Magistrate Act”),
12
overruled on other grounds by United States v. Hardesty, 977 F.2d 1347, 1348 (9th
13
Cir. 1992) (en banc) (per curiam); see also Rule 2(c)(1) of the Rules Governing
14
Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts (the petition “must” “specify
15
all grounds for relief available to the petitioner”);Greene v. Henry, 302 F.3d 1067,
16
1070 n.3 (9th Cir. 2002) (declining to consider three additional ineffective
17
assistance of counsel claims and noting, “since they were not made in the federal
18
petition, we need not consider them”). Moreover, Petitioner was not convicted of
19
first degree premeditated murder; he was convicted of second degree murder. Thus,
20
even if his unexhausted and belatedly-raised Chiu claim was properly before the
21
Court, any purported Chiu error necessarily was harmless. See Brecht v.
22
Abrahamson, 113 S. Ct. 1710, 1714 (1993) (an error is harmless if it did not have a
23
“substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict”).
The Court has carefully considered Petitioner’s Objections. The Court concludes
24
25
that nothing set forth therein affects or alters, or calls into question, the analysis and
26
conclusions set forth in the Report.
27
///
28
///
3
1
Having completed its review, the Court accepts the findings and
2
recommendations set forth in the Report. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: (1)
3
the Petition is DENIED; and (2) Judgment shall be entered dismissing this action
4
with prejudice.
5
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
6
7
8
9
DATE: March 30, 2017
__________________________________
ANDREW J. GUILFORD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?