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)

Download PDF
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

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?