Salvador Munguia v. R E Barnes

Filing 27

AMENDED ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS by Judge Stephen V. Wilson for Report and Recommendation (Issued) 19 . Having conducted a de novo review of the claims raised in the habeas corpus petition, the Court concurs with and accepts the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. [See Order for details.] (san)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13

SALVADOR MUNGUJA,
Petitioner,
V.

14

R.E BARNES, Warden

15

Case No. CV 12-829 SVW (JEM)

AMfvDED

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS
AND RECOMMENDATION OF
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE
JUDGE

Respondent.

16
17
19

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the pleadings, the
records and files herein, and the Report and Recommendation of the United States

20

Magistrate Judge ("R&R").

18

21

There are no objections to the R&R. The R&R was issued on July 17, 2013,

22

and petitioner was notified that any objections were due by August 7, 2013. On

23

August 2, 2013, petitioner requested an additional thirty days to file objections.

24

His request was granted and petitioner was given until September 7, 2013 to file

25

objections. On September 3, 2013, petitioner filed a second request for an

26

extension of time, asking for a further thirty days to file objections. This request

27

was granted in part, and petitioner was told that any objections were now due no

28

later than September 21, 2013. Petitioner did not file any objections by that date,

1
2

and has not sought leave since then to file late objections.
Having conducted a de novo review of the claims raised in the habeas

3 corpus petition, the Court concurs with and accepts the findings and conclusions
4
5

of the Magistrate Judge.
With respect to petitioner’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence on

6 his attempted murder conviction, the Court observes that this case is unlike Juan
7 H. v. Allen, 408 F.3d 1262 (9th Cir. 2005). In Juan H., the record contained
8 "manifestly insufficient evidence to support the necessary conclusions that [the
9 defendant] knew that [his brother] planned to commit the first-degree murders of
10 [the two victims]." Id. at 1277 (emphasis added). The conviction in Juan H. did
11 not rest on "a theory that the petitioner aided and abetted minor crimes, such as
12 simple assault and battery for example, which, in turn, naturally and probably led
13 to murder." Mendoza v. Runnels, 251 Fed. App’x 406, 409 (9th Cir. 2007)
14 (unpublished). "Here, the target crimes included assault and battery.
15

Consequently, the state was required only to prove that [petitioner] aided and

16 abetted the assaults, which, in turn, naturally and probably led to murder."
17

People v. Prettyman, 14 Cal. 4th 248, 262 (1996) (explaining California’s

18 "natural and probable consequences" doctrine).
19

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for habeas corpus is hereby

20 DENIED.
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22
23

Dated: Decemberj720 13

woe

24
25

MINIM

26
27
28
2

Id.;