Sean Anthony Crishon v. Debbie Asuncion

Filing 33


Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SEAN ANTHONY CRISHON, Petitioner, 12 13 14 v. RAYBON JOHNSON, Warden, Respondent. 15 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. CV 18-2271-PA (JPR) ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 The Court has reviewed the Petition, records on file, and 18 Report and Recommendation of U.S. Magistrate Judge. 19 16, 2021, after Petitioner failed to file timely objections, the 20 Court accepted the R. & R. and denied the Petition, dismissing it 21 with prejudice. 22 when Petitioner’s counsel established good cause for not timely 23 filing objections and requested an extension of time to do so. 24 On March 8, 2021, Petitioner filed objections to the R. & R.; 25 Respondent has not filed a response. 26 On January The Court subsequently vacated that judgment Petitioner largely reiterates the arguments raised in his 27 Petition and Reply. For instance, he maintains (see Objs. at 2- 28 5) that the state court of appeal erred in finding that he was 1 properly convicted of both robbing and attempting to rob Jerome 2 Bilderrain (see Lodged Doc. 6 at 21-22). 3 issue with the Magistrate Judge’s correct conclusion that his 4 claim boils down to an assertion that the state court wrongly 5 applied state law in determining that his crimes were not 6 committed “pursuant to one intention, one general impulse, and 7 one plan,” and this Court is bound by the state court’s holding. 8 (See R. & R. at 26-27.) 9 R. & R. (see id. at 27-30), the evidence supported the state But he doesn’t take Further, for the reasons detailed in the 10 court’s finding that two separate takings constituted distinct 11 crimes, as they “were . . . committed pursuant to different 12 criminal plans” and “occurred in different locations and at 13 different times” (id. at 29).1 14 Petitioner also contends that the Magistrate Judge erred in 15 finding that his instructional-error claim didn’t warrant habeas 16 relief. 17 theft as a lesser included offense of his robbery of George 18 Anderson because the jury could have found that Petitioner didn’t 19 use force when he stole Anderson’s phone. 20 He claims that the Magistrate Judge improperly “focus[ed] only on He argues that the jury should have been instructed on (See Objs. at 6-9.) 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 Petitioner points out that in her closing argument, the prosecutor “did not address the attempted robbery charge or the taking of Bilderrain’s jewelry.” (Objs. at 4.) But there is no merit to his suggestion that Respondent’s arguments here are inconsistent with the prosecution’s trial theory because, as the Magistrate Judge noted (see R. & R. at 31-32), the charging instrument reflected the prosecution’s theory that the attempted robbery of the jewelry occurred the day before the robbery of the cash, and the prosecutor discussed the attempted robbery of the jewelry in her opening statement. Nothing mandates that a prosecutor discuss all the evidence or all the charges in her closing argument. 2 1 the evidence in favor of judgment instead of considering what 2 evidence the jury might have applied towards a finding of theft.” 3 (Id. at 8.) 4 evidence, “no reasonable juror would have found” that he had 5 reached a place of safety by the time he used force and therefore 6 committed only theft. 7 contest her finding that although the evidence might have been 8 consistent with an inference that Petitioner used force in self- 9 defense, “whether a justified use of force during a defendant’s To the contrary, she concluded that given the (R. & R. at 41.) And Petitioner does not 10 escape could nonetheless satisfy the force element of robbery is 11 a state-law issue that . . . this Court may not reexamine.” 12 at 43.) 13 (Id. Having reviewed de novo those portions of the R. & R. to 14 which Petitioner objects, the Court agrees with and accepts the 15 findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. 16 THEREFORE IS ORDERED that judgment be entered denying the 17 Petition and dismissing this action with prejudice. 18 19 20 DATED: April 27, 2021 PERCY ANDERSON U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 IT

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?