Daniel Arenas v. James Walker, No. 5:2011cv01499 - Document 23 (C.D. Cal. 2012)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS by Magistrate Judge Marc L. Goldman: (See document for details.) (Attachments: # 1 part 2) (rla)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 FILED· SOUTHERN DIVISION CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COUR.:J 2 MAY - 22012 3 4 CENTfW. Ol$TRlCt Qf CALlFOAtflA DEP' 8Y 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 EASTERN DIVISION 10 11 Case No. EDCV 11-1499-MLG DANIEL ARENAS, 12 13 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS Petitioner, v. 14 JAMES WALKER, Warden, 15 Respondent. 16 17 18 I. Background This is a petition for writ of habeas corpus brought pursuant 19 to 28 U.S.C. 20 following an incident in which he assaulted his girlfriend and her 21 sister-in-law, and had an ensuing armed confrontation with police. 1 22 On June 25, 2005, Petitioner was convicted by a San Bernardino County 23 Superior Court jury of the following crimes: possession of a firearm 24 by an ex-felon (Cal. Penal Code 25 a loaded firearm in a rude, angry or threatening manner (Cal. Penal § 2254. On January 10, 2004, Petitioner was arrested § 12021(a) (1)) (count 1); exhibiting 26 27 28 1 A detailed recitation of the underlying facts of the incident is unnecessary to the resolution of the instant petition. For those interested, those facts may be found in the Report and Recommendation filed on August 20, 2009 in Arenas v. Walker, Case No. EDCV 08-00943GAF (MLG). 1 Code 2 243 (e) (1)) 3 Penal Code 4 of an officer 5 deadly weapon to an officer to resist arrest 6 417.8) 7 7); assault on an officer with a semiautomatic firearm (Cal. Penal 8 Code 9 gross negligence in a manner that could cause injury or death (Cal. 10 § § 41 7 (b)) (count 3); § 245(b)) (Cal. 2); mi sdemeanor battery assault with a (Cal. 245(d) (2)) § Penal Code semiautomatic firearm § (Cal. (count 4); exhibiting a firearm in the presence Penal Code § 417(c)) (count 5); exhibiting a (Cal. (count 6); resisting an officer (Cal. Penal Code Penal Code 11 (count (counts 8 - 10); and discharge of 246.3(a)) a Penal Code § 69) firearm § (count with (count 11). The jury found true the gang enhancement allegations (Cal. Penal 12 Code 13 the allegation that Petitioner personally used a firearm (Cal. Penal 14 Code 15 personally and intentionally discharged a firearm (Cal. Penal Code 16 § 17 allegation that Petitioner had incurred two prior strike convictions, 18 two serious prior felony convictions, and three prior prison terms. 19 Petitioner was sentenced to a 20 months. § § 186.22(b) (1)) on counts 1 and 5-11. The jury also found true 12022.5(a), (d)) with respect to counts 4 and 7, and that he 12022.53(c)) on counts 8-10. In addition, the jury found true the prison term of 65 years and four 21 The judgment of conviction was affirmed by the California Court 22 of Appeal on December 19, 2007, except that Petitioner's sentence was 23 reduced by five years. Petitioner then filed a petition for review 24 with the California Supreme Court, which was denied on April 9, 2008. 25 Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in this 26 Court on July 15, 2008, in which he raised seven grounds for relief, 27 including the claim that the evidence was insufficient to support the 28 true findings by the jury on the gang enhancement allegations. On 2 1 September 29, 2009, District Judge Gary A. Feess adopted my Report 2 and 3 sufficiency of evidence supporting the gang enhancements, and denying 4 the petition with prejudice as to the remaining six claims 5 relief. A certificate of appealability was denied by this Court on 6 November 9, 2009 and by the United States Court of Appeals for the 7 Ninth Circuit on August 12, 2011. Recommendation, 8 9 granting the petition with respect to the for On January 7, 2010, Petitioner was resentenced in the superior court to a term of 48 years and four months. (Lodgment 10 at 24.) 10 After resentencing, Petitioner appealed to the California Court of 11 Appeal, raising the following two new claims for relief: (1) the jury 12 made inconsistent findings at trial, and (2) the admission of gang 13 evidence was unduly prejudicial. 14 2010, 15 Petitioner was precluded from raising these claims on appeal because 16 they were not raised in the trial court in the first instance nor on 17 his first direct appeal. 18 Petitioner filed a petition for review in the California Supreme 19 Court, 20 January 21 (Lodgment 15.) 22 the court of appeal (Lodgments 11, 12.) On October 26, affirmed the judgment, 2011, the On September 19, that (Lodgment 13 at 5.) On December 14, 2010, raising the same two claims of error. 19, finding supreme 2011, court (Lodgment 14.) summarily denied On review. Petitioner filed this habeas corpus 23 petition, alleging the two grounds for relief presented in his second 24 round of direct appeals: 25 trial, and (2) the admission of gang evidence was unduly prejudicial. 26 On November 9, 2011, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the 27 current petition, claiming that it is a successive petition within 28 the meaning of 28 U.S.C. (1) the jury made inconsistent findings at § 2244(b), because Petitioner could have, 3 1 but did not, raise these two claims in his previous federal habeas 2 corpus petition. On February 1, 2012, the Court denied Respondent's 3 motion to dismiss, finding that because an intervening judgment had 4 been entered since resolution of the first petition, 5 petition was 6 2244(b). See Magwood v. Patterson, --- U.S. ---, 130 S.Ct. 2788; see 7 also Wentzell v. Neven, 8 Cir. 9 addressing the merits of the claims raised in the petition. On April Apr. 2012, not 2, successive within 2012). the meaning of the current 28 U.S.C. --- F.3d ----, 2012 WL 1071638 at *3 Respondent Respondent filed an was ordered answer and to on file an April 30, § (9th answer 10 13, 2012, 11 Petitioner filed a traverse. The matter is ready for decision. 2 12 13 II. 14 Standard of Review Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 15 ("AEDPA"), federal 16 prisoners who are in custody "in violation of the Constitution or 17 laws or treaties of the united States." 28 U. S. C. 18 establish a right to relief, a petitioner must show that the state's 19 highest court rejected the petitioner's claim on the merits, and that 20 this 21 application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the 22 Supreme Court of the united States," or was "based on an unreasonable 23 determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the 24 State court proceeding." Id. 25 U.S. rejection 131 habeas was S.Ct. corpus "contrary 770, § to, relief or is available involved an § to state 2254 (a). To unreasonable 2254(d); Harrington v. Richter, 783-84 (2011). These standards apply 26 27 28 2 Both parties have consented to have a magistrate judge conduct all proceedings in this case. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (1). (Docket Nos. 5 and 11.) 4 1 regardless of whether the state court explained its reasons for 2 rejecting a prisoner's claim. Richter, 131 S.Ct. at 784 3 state court's decision is unaccompanied by an explanation, the habeas 4 petitioner's 5 reasonable basis for the state court to deny relief."). 6 It is burden not still enough must that a be met by showing federal court ("Where a there conclude was "in no its 7 independent judgment" that the state court decision is incorrect or 8 erroneous. Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541 U.S. 652, 665 (2004) 9 Woodford v. Visciotti, 537 U.S. 19, 24-25 (2002) state 11 objectively unreasonable." 12 (2003) 13 (2010). AEDPA imposes a "highly deferential standard for evaluating 14 state-court rulings; 15 given the benefit of the doubt." Bell v. 16 (2005); Vasquez v. Kirkland, 572 F.3d 1029, 1035 (9th Cir. 2009). i application of clearly (per curiam)). "The 10 17 court's (quoting Lockyer v. established Andrade, 538 law must be 63, 75 U. S. see also Renico v. Lett, --- U.S. ---, 130 S.Ct. 1855, 1865 Habeas relief which demands that state-court decisions be is unavailable if Cone, 543 U.S. 447, "fairminded jurists 455 could 18 disagree" about the correctness of the state court decision. Richter, 19 131 S.Ct. 20 quotation marks omitted). For habeas relief to be granted, "a state 21 prisoner must show that the state court's ruling on the claim being 22 presented in federal court was so lacking in justification that there 23 was an error well understood and comprehended in existing law beyond 24 any possibility for fairminded disagreement." Richter, 131 S.Ct. at 25 786-87. 26 II 27 II 28 II at 786 (quoting Yarborough, 5 541 U.S. at 664) (internal 1 III. Discussion 2 A. Procedural Default 3 As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that Respondent 4 contends that Petitioner's claims are procedurally barred based upon 5 an independent and adequate state ground, 6 failed to object at trial to the alleged errors and failed to raise 7 them in his first appeal. 8 determined that Petitioner's claims fail on the merits, Respondent's 9 procedural default argument will not be addressed. See Lambrix v. namely that Petitioner (Answer at 15-16.) Because the Court has 520 U.S. 518, 524 (1997) (where it is easier to resolve 10 Singletary, 11 a 12 economy counsel against deciding the often more complicated issue of 13 procedural default); Walters v. Maass, 45 F.3d 1355, 1360 n.6 14 Cir. 1995). 15 B. 16 Petitioner contends that the jury reached inconsistent verdicts petitioner's on the merits, the interests of judicial (9th Inconsistent Jury Verdicts 17 at 18 intentionally discharged a firearm with respect to the charge of 19 assault on a police officer with a semiautomatic weapon in count 8 20 is inconsistent with the finding that he discharged a firearm with 21 gross negligence which could cause injury to a person in count 11. 3 22 (Pet. at 5-6.) Petitioner is not entitled to relief on this claim. 23 24 trial. claims He claims that In United States v. the Powell, finding that 469 U.S. 57 he personally (1984), and the Supreme Court addressed an internal inconsistency in a verdict where the 25 26 27 28 3 The trial court chose count 8 as the principal term, imposing the midterm of fourteen years (seven years doubled for the prior strike) with an additional twenty-year term for the intentional firearm discharge enhancement. Sentence on Count 11 was stayed pursuant to Cal. Penal Code- § 654. 6
]]>
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.
