Rodney Barnes v. Terri Gonzales, No. 2:2012cv02076 - Document 18 (C.D. Cal. 2012)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITION AND DISMISSING ACTION WITH PREJUDICE by Magistrate Judge Jean P Rosenbluth: (See document for details.) IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that Judgment be entered denying the Petition and dismissing this action with prejudice. (Attachments: # 1 PART 2, # 2 PART 3, # 3 PART 4) (rla) Modified on 8/28/2012 (rla).
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 court of appeal rejected all of those claims in reasoned 2 decisions issued on May 19, 2011 (Lodgments 4, 8), except that it 3 did not address Petitioner's Confrontation Clause argument in 4 claim one (Lodgment 1 at 19; Lodgment 5 at 15). 5 the California Supreme Court summarily denied his Petition for 6 Review and habeas petition. Subsequently, (Lodgments 5, 6, 9, 10.) Thus, the 7 Court "looks through" the state supreme court's silent denials to 8 the last reasoned decisions as the bases for the state court's 9 judgment. See Ylst v. Nunnemaker, 501 U.S. 797, 803-04, 111 S. 10 Ct. 2590, 2595, 115 L. Ed. 2d 706 (1991) 11 Supreme Court, by its silent denial of petition for review, 12 presumably did not intend to change court of appeal's analysis); 13 Bonner v. Carey, 425 F.3d 1145, 1148 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005) 14 (applying look-through doctrine to state habeas petitions). 15 Court reviews Petitioner's claims that were adjudicated by the 16 state courts under the deferential AEDPA standard of review. 17 Richter, 131 S. Ct. at 784. 18 Clause subclaim in claim one de novo because it was not addressed 19 by the state courts even though Petitioner presented it to them 20 (see Lodgment 1 at 19; Lodgment 5 at 15). 21 u.s. The See The Court reviews the Confrontation See Cone v. Bell, 556 449, 472, 129 S. Ct. 1769, 1784, 173 L. Ed. 2d 701 (2009). 22 23 (holding that California DISCUSSION I. Habeas relief is not warranted on Petitioner's evidentiary 24 claim 25 Petitioner contends that the trial court violated his 26 constitutional rights to due process and to confront witnesses by 27 admitting a purportedly fake invoice given by defense counsel to 28 the prosecutor before trial. (Pet. at 5.) 8 1 A. 2 3 The Court has independently verified and accordingly adopts the court of appeal's factual summary regarding Petitioner's 4 evidentiary claim: 5 Background After the preliminary hearing in this matter, 6 defense counsel handed a document marked "invoice" to the 7 prosecutor, Rachel Bowers. [FN2] 8 the exact words spoken by defense counsel; however, she 9 testified at trial that the invoice was presented to her Bowers did not recall 10 as 11 services rendered." 12 handwritten name at the top; indicates that four bedrooms 13 were painted at an address on East Lancaster Blvd.; and 14 the 15 investigation, 16 theatre/auto audio business known as California Sound 17 Works, which does not have bedrooms and has not painted 18 its premises in the last six years. 19 operate 20 production, not house painting. "a receipt service in that was "sold the 22 At trial, by" address Lancaster, [FN2] to the defendant for The invoice contains Robertson's was 21 given and [Petitioner] . proved its to be Upon a home Robertson's does not business is concrete A different prosecutor handled the trial. [Petitioner] sought to have the invoice 23 excluded from evidence, ostensibly because any testimony 24 from Bowers about 25 hearsay. 26 relevant to prove 27 because the invoice was - 28 tried to the provenance of the invoice was The prosecution contended that the invoice was [Petitioner]'s guilty state of mind negotiate like the check fake. 9 [Petitioner] [Petitioner] , s counsel 1 conceded that she gave Bowers the invoice, saying that it 2 was a receipt for work performed by [Petitioner]. 3 4 5 properly "lay the foundation" while questioning Bowers, the 6 invoice would be admissible as an admission by a party opponent. 7 (Lodgment 11, 2 Rep.'s Tr. at 606-07.) 8 (Lodgment 4 at 4.) The trial court denied Petitioner's motion to exclude the invoice, finding that if the prosecutor could The court of appeal rejected Petitioner's claim: 9 [Petitioner] now argues that no foundation was laid 10 for 11 unknown when the invoice was created, who authored the 12 document, 13 document was drafted, 14 services rendered in this case or some other job on some 15 other date." 16 invoice was not admitted as true documentation of an 17 actual transaction to paint four bedrooms. 18 was admitted to 19 guilt: 20 [Petitioner] 21 prosecutor 22 legitimately 23 remuneration for his services. 24 (2010) 49 Cal. 4th 846, 921 [fabrication of exculpatory 25 evidence shows consciousness of guilt].) 26 prosecution was not trying to prove that this was a 27 genuine invoice, no authentication was required. 28 admission of A the the the invoice, intent of the reasoning that author at the "it time the or whether the document was for [Petitioner] 's argument is misplaced. show invoice [Petitioner]' s was fabricated [Petitioner] received reasonable the inference 10 Rather, it to from exonerate to convince the painted check The consciousness of of the criminal charges, that is a house and Robertson's as (See People v. Alexander can be Because the drawn that 1 [Petitioner] supplied the invoice to his attorney, who 2 passed it on to Prosecutor Bowers. 3 admi t ted 4 5 [Petitioner] knew who created the document, when it was created, his intent, and whether it reflected services 6 rendered. 7 8 9 possession of the invoice, which the jury was free to as believe much to Bowers or the trial could bolstered by a letter court. relate disbelieve. Defense counsel how Bowers's [Petitioner] Presumably, she came into recollection was sent to the court, 10 indicating that "a bad check [] was issued to me for my 11 labor," 12 supplied. 13 employer vouched that [Petitioner] earned the check with 14 his labor. 15 to show [Petitioner]'s consciousness of guilt. 16 which goes hand in hand with the invoice he No testimony from a work supervisor or There was no error in admitting the invoice Even if the invoice was improperly admitted, the 17 error was harmless. 18 guilt. 19 be made on a home computer, with none of the security 20 features 21 proved 22 investigation, 23 around 24 leaving 25 [Petitioner] 26 nervous, but did not seem surprised or shocked that the 27 bank manager refused to cash the check. 28 person would be stunned to learn that a payroll check was There was abundant evidence of [Petitioner] presented a check that appeared to used by commercial to be fraudulent. [Petitioner] nervously. his enterprises. He bank's fidgety was the and looking out without and a check. reappeared two hours later, 11 check During slipped identification The warning, When he was still An innocent 1 fraudulent 2 circumstances, 3 Instead, 4 his identification, his wallet, 5 bank, without explanation. 6 convicted even without the invoice. 7 and would be eager to explain the rectify the error, and ensure paYment. [Petitioner] turned on his heel, and abandoned and the check at the [Petitioner] would have been (Lodgment 4 at 5-6.) 8 B. 9 A Due Process 2 federal habeas court does not review "questions of state 10 evidence law." 11 1999). Spivey v. Rocha, 194 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. Only if a petitioner asserts that the admission of 12 evidence by the state court violated his due process rights is 13 the claim cognizable on federal habeas review, and then only if 14 the evidence rendered the trial "fundamentally unfair." Holley 15 v. Yarborough, 568 F.3d 1091, 1101 (9th Cir. 2009). 16 admission of inculpatory evidence violated due process only if no 17 permissible inferences existed for the jury to draw from the The 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 Even though the court of appeal did not explicitly refer to the Due Process Clause in denying Petitioner's evidentiary claim, its analysis tracked the standard applicable under federal law by concluding that the invoice was admissible to show his consciousness of guilt. See Ortiz-Sandoval v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 891, 897 (9th Cir. 1996) (holding that admission of prior-bad-acts evidence to show consciousness of guilt did not violate Due Process Clause). The court of appeal therefore necessarily adjudicated that federal claim. See Ramirez v. McDonald, No. CV 11-02068-JST (SS), 2011 WL 7111902, at *7 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 22, 2011) (concluding that state court necessarily adjudicated federal nature of instructional-error claim even though court cited only state law because "applicable state-law standard imposed the same limit on trial court discretion as the applicable legal standard under the federal Constitution"), accepted by 2012 WL 263032 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 26,2012). 12 1 evidence, which was so inflammatory that it necessarily prevented 2 a fair trial. Windham v. Merkle, 163 F.3d 1092, 1103 (9th Cir. 3 1998); Hovey v. Ayers, 458 F.3d 892, 923 (9th Cir. 2006). The 4 Supreme Court has made "very few rulings regarding the admission 5 of evidence as a violation of due process"; specifically, it has 6 never "made a clear ruling that admission of irrelevant or 7 overtly prejudicial evidence constitutes a due process violation 8 sufficient to warrant issuance of the writ." Holley, 568 F.3d at 9 1101. 10 The court of appeal's denial of this subclaim was not 11 objectively unreasonable. 12 limn the alleged due process violation in the Petition, to the 13 extent he claims that the invoice was irrelevant, prejudicial, or 14 lacked foundation, absent clearly established federal law 15 recognizing that the admission of such evidence violates due Even though Petitioner did not fully 16 process, the court of appeal could not have been unreasonable 17 under AEDPA. 18 S. Ct. 743, 746-47, 169 L. Ed. 2d 583 (2008) 19 court could not have unreasonably applied federal law if no clear See Wright v. Van Patten, 552 U.S. 120, 125-26, 128 (holding that state 20 Supreme Court precedent existed); Holley, 568 F.3d at 1101; Baker 21 v. Evans, No. 2:07-cv-00188 JCW, 2010 WL 4722034, at *25 (E.D. 22 Cal. Nov. 12, 2010) (rejecting evidentiary claim challenging lack 23 of foundation in part because state court denial did not 24 contradict controlling Supreme Court precedent). 25 the admission of the invoice did not render Petitioner's trial 26 fundamentally unfair because it was relevant to show his 27 consciousness of guilt, in that other evidence suggested he had 28 created and then given the fake invoice to his attorney, 13 In any event, 1 presumably to exonerate himself and corroborate his explanation 2 that he had received the check for his labor. 3 Further, the 3 prosecutor laid a foundation for the invoice because Bowers 4 testified that defense counsel had given it to her in the hallway 5 after the preliminary hearing, and other evidence demonstrated 6 that defense counsel had gotten it from Petitioner. (Lodgment 7 11, 2 Rep.'s Tr. at 904-08, 912.) 8 Finally, even if erroneous, the admission of the invoice did 9 not have a substantial and injurious effect in determining the 10 verdicts. See Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 638, 113 S. 11 Ct. 1710, 1722, 123 L. Ed. 2d 353 (1993); Merolillo v. Yates, 663 12 F.3d 444, 455 (9th Cir. 2011) 13 court's harmlessness analysis). (applying Brecht to review state As the court of appeal found, 14 the evidence of Petitioner's guilt was "abundant." (Lodgment 4 15 at 5.) Petitioner (1) attempted to cash a fake check printed 16 from a home computer (Lodgment 11, 2 Rep.'s Tr. at 673-76, 684- 17 89, 918-19); (2) appeared "fidgety" and "nervous" at the bank 18 (id. at 690); (3) left abruptly the first time, without the check 19 and his California identification card, when bank personnel 20 decided to verify the check (id. at 679, 691-92; and (4) left the 21 second time without protest, and without his wallet, when he was 22 23 Even though the court of appeal merely presumed that Petitioner had given the fake invoice to his attorney (Lodgment 4 at 5 ("A reasonable inference can be drawn that [Petitioner] supplied the invoice to his attorney, who passed it on to Prosecutor Bowers.")), Petitioner conceded that fact in his state habeas petition, to which he attached defense counsel's declaration stating that Petitioner said he prepared the invoice himself and insisted that she deliver it to the prosecutor to "clear up the whole misunderstanding" (Lodgment 9, Ex. A). 3 24 25 26 27 28 14
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
