Carr v. State of Washington

Filing 30

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 28 ; denying Petitioner's 29 Objection; dismissing the habeas petition with prejudice and declining to issue a certificate of appealability. Signed by Judge Richard A. Jones. **2 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL**(Peter Carr, Prisoner ID: 357101)(PM)

1

HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES

2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9

PETER JAMES CARR,
Petitioner,

10
11
12

v.
RONALD HAYNES,

Case No. C17-1326 RAJ
ORDER DISMISSING FEDERAL
HABEAS ACTION

Respondent.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

The Court has reviewed petitioner’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition,
Respondent’s answer to the petition, the Report and Recommendation of Mary Alice
Theiler, United States Magistrate Judge, Petitioner’s objection to the Report and
Recommendation, and the remaining record. The Court concurs fully in the
recommendations of the Report and Recommendation. Petitioner’s objection is largely a
recitation of the same insufficiency of evidence arguments for both counts that were
considered and rejected by both the Washington State Court of Appeals and Judge
Theiler, in her well-reasoned R&R.
The only other argument that this Court can discern from Petitioner’s objection is
an assertion that the jury did not understand the law with respect to Count II
(Communication with a Minor for an Immoral Purpose) because it asked the trial court to
define the term “immoral purposes of a sexual nature” and the trial court declined. Dkt. #
29 at 28. Petitioner appears to believe this to be an error by the trial court, but gives no
ORDER – 1

1

legal support for why this should be the case. Petitioner does not provide any other

2

evidence of juror confusion, or allege any other error. Petitioner’s argument also does

3

not change or challenge the fact that the Washington Court of Appeals, applying the

4

correct legal standards and considering the full evidentiary record, concluded that a

5

“reasonable trier of fact could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Carr

6

communicated with K.W. for the predatory purpose of promoting her exposure to and

7

involvement in sexual conduct.” State v. Carr, 179 Wash. Ct. App. 1031, at *4 (Feb. 18,

8

2014); Dkt. # 28 at 10-11. Even if this Court assumes that an error exists, Petitioner fails

9

to demonstrate how the alleged error by the trial court was anything but harmless.

10

Accordingly, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. # 28),

11

DENIES Petitioner’s objection (Dkt. # 29), DISMISSES this habeas petition with

12

prejudice, and DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability. The clerk shall enter

13

judgment for Respondent and ensure that Judge Theiler receives notice of this order.

14
15

DATED this 23rd day of July, 2018.

16
17

A

18
19

The Honorable Richard A. Jones
United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ORDER – 2