Bray v. Espinoza et al

Filing 12

ORDER (1) adopting 11 Report and Recommendation, (2) Denying Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, and (3) Denying certificate of appealability. Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 6/26/2020. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(jpp)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

VEGAS BRAY,

Case No.: 18-CV-1169 JLS (MBS)
Petitioner,

12
13
14

ORDER (1) ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION,
(2) DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT
OF HABEAS CORPUS, AND
(3) DENYING CERTIFICATE OF
APPEALABILITY

v.
J. ESPINOZA, Warden, et al.,
Respondents.

15
16
17

(ECF Nos. 1, 11)

18

Presently before the Court is Magistrate Judge Michael S. Berg’s Report and

19

Recommendation (“R&R,” ECF No. 11), recommending that the Court dismiss Petitioner

20

Vegas Bray’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Pet.,” ECF No. 1). Petitioner did not

21

file any objections to the R&R. Having considered the Petition, Magistrate Judge Berg’s

22

R&R, the state court record, and the law, the Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Berg’s

23

R&R in its entirety, DENIES the Petition, and DENIES Petitioner a certificate of

24

appealability (“COA”).

25

BACKGROUND

26

Magistrate Judge Berg’s R&R contains a thorough and accurate recitation of the

27

factual and procedural history underlying the instant Petition. See R&R at 2–5. This Order

28

incorporates by reference the background as set forth therein.
1
18-CV-1169 JLS (MBS)

1

LEGAL STANDARD

2

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth a district

3

court’s duties in connection with a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. The

4

district court must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or

5

specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made,” and “may

6

accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the

7

magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667,

8

673–76 (1980); United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). In the absence

9

of timely objection, however, the Court “need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error

10

on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72

11

advisory committee’s note (citing Campbell v. U.S. Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th

12

Cir. 1974)).

13

ANALYSIS

14

Petitioner, who was convicted of first-degree murder, see R&R at 4 (citing ECF No.

15

8-9 at 996), raises a single ground for relief in her Petition, namely, that the trial court

16

committed prejudicial error by failing properly to instruct the jury on the lesser included

17

offense of involuntary manslaughter. See id. at 7 (citing Pet. at 2, 6, 25–41).

18

Magistrate Judge Berg concludes that “the California Court of Appeal’s denial of

19

the Petitioner’s jury instruction claim was neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable

20

application of, clearly established federal law” and, “[f]urther, based on review of the entire

21

record, the state court’s decision was not based on an unreasonable determination of the

22

facts in light of the evidence presented at the state court proceeding.” Id. at 17 (citing 28

23

U.S.C. §§ 2254(d)(1)–(2)). He therefore recommends that the Court deny the Petition on

24

several grounds. See id. at 9–17.

25

First, Magistrate Judge Berg concludes that, “[t]o the extent that Petitioner claims

26

that the state trial court violated state law when it did not properly instruct the jury on the

27

lesser included offense of involuntary manslaughter, the claim is not subject to federal

28

habeas review.” Id. at 9 (citing Estelle v. Maguire, 502 U.S. 62, 67–68 (1991)).
2
18-CV-1169 JLS (MBS)

1

Second, “[t]o the extent that Petitioner contends that the trial court’s alleged failure

2

to properly instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of involuntary manslaughter

3

violated her federal constitutional rights, . . . [t]here is no clearly established federal law

4

. . . because the United States Supreme Court expressly declined to rule on whether a trial

5

court’s failure to instruct on a lesser included offense in a non-capital case violates the

6

federal constitution.” Id. at 10 (citing Beck v. Alabama, 447 U.S. 625, 638 n.14 (1980);

7

Powell v. Hatcher, 407 F. App’x. 226, 227 (9th Cir. 2011); United States v. Rivera-Alonzo,

8

584 F.3d 829, 834 n.3 (9th Cir. 2009)). Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Berg finds that

9

“[h]abeas relief is not available . . . because the Court cannot find that the state appellate

10

court ‘unreasonabl[y] appli[ed] . . . clearly established Federal law, as determined by the

11

Supreme Court of the United States.’” Id. (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); Beck, 447 U.S. at

12

638 n.14).

13

Finally, to the extent Petitioner contends that the failure to provide a proper

14

involuntary manslaughter instruction violated her due process rights by denying her “a

15

meaningful opportunity to present a full defense,” see id. at 11 (quoting Bradley v. Duncan,

16

315 F.3d 1091, 1098–99 (9th Cir. 2002)), Magistrate Judge Berg concludes that, “[u]nder

17

the facts presented here, the modified jury instruction given by the trial judge did not ‘so

18

infect[] the entire trial that the resulting conviction violates due process.’” Id. at 17

19

(quoting Estelle, 502 U.S. at 72). As an initial matter, “Petitioner’s theory that she

20

dissociated as a result of her mental illness and therefore lacked the necessary capacity to

21

commit murder appears to be explicitly addressed in the modified[, allegedly deficient]

22

instruction’s language.” Id. at 15. Further, “even if the trial court erred by omitting a

23

portion of the involuntary manslaughter jury instruction, the error was harmless[] because

24

there was no substantial or injurious influence on the jury’s verdict” in light of “the

25

California Court of Appeal[’s] determin[ation that] there is no reasonable basis for

26

assuming that . . . the verdict would have been different[] given that the jury found that

27

Petitioner premediated the killing and acted with express malice.” Id. at 1516 (citing Barao

28

v. Frauenheim, No. 2:15-cv-00098-JKS, 2016 WL 146235, at *8–9 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 13,
3
18-CV-1169 JLS (MBS)

1

2016); Williams-Cook v. Yates, No. 09-CV-2643-H (AJB), 2010 WL 3768113, at *5–7

2

(S.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2010)).

3

Because Petitioner failed timely to object to Magistrate Judge Berg’s R&R, see R&R

4

at 17 (directing that any objections be filed by February 28, 2020), the Court reviews the

5

R&R for clear error. Having reviewed the R&R, the Court finds that it is well reasoned

6

and contains no clear error. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS in its entirety Magistrate

7

Judge Bergs’s R&R (ECF No. 11) and DENIES the Petition (ECF No. 1).

8

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

9

The Court also is obliged to determine whether to issue a COA in this proceeding.

10

A COA is authorized “if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a

11

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). “Where a district court has rejected the

12

constitutional claims on the merits, . . . [t]he petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable

13

jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or

14

wrong.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). When “the district court denies a

15

habeas petition on procedural grounds without reaching the prisoner’s underlying

16

constitutional claim, a COA should issue when the prisoner shows, at least, that jurists of

17

reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a

18

constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district

19

court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Id.

20

Because the Court finds that no reasonable jurist would find it debatable whether the

21

Court was correct in its determination that Petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas corpus

22

relief, the questions presented by the Petition do not warrant further proceedings.

23

Accordingly, the Court DENIES a COA.

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
4
18-CV-1169 JLS (MBS)

1

CONCLUSION

2

In light of the foregoing, the Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Berg’s R&R in its

3

entirety (ECF No. 11), DENIES the Petition (ECF No. 1), and DENIES a certificate of

4

appealability. Accordingly, the Clerk of Court SHALL ENTER Judgment denying the

5

Petition and SHALL CLOSE the file.

6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8

Dated: June 26, 2020

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
18-CV-1169 JLS (MBS)