Sean Anthony Crishon v. Debbie Asuncion

Filing 33

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 by Judge Percy Anderson. (es)

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