Corey Fields v. R. C. Johnson, No. 2:2019cv02549 - Document 35 (C.D. Cal. 2022)
Court Description: ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE, IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that 1 Petitioner's request for an extension of time to file objections (ECF No. 33 ) is denied as moot; 2 the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 27 ) is accepted and adopted; and 3 Judgment shall be entered denying the Petition and dismissing this action with prejudice. by Judge Stephen V. Wilson. re: Report and Recommendation (Issued), 27 (es)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Corey Fields v. R. C. Johnson Doc. 35 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 13 14 15 COREY FIELDS, v. Case No. 2:19-cv-02549-SVW (MAA) Petitioner, R.C. JOHNSON, Warden, ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Respondent. 16 17 18 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition, the other 19 records on file herein, and the Report and Recommendation of the United States 20 Magistrate Judge. Further, the Court has engaged in a de novo review of those 21 portions of the Report to which Petitioner has raised objections. Petitioner’s 22 request for an extension of time to file objections (ECF No. 33) is denied as moot. 23 Moreover, for the reasons stated below, Petitioner’s objections are overruled. 24 Petitioner objects that the California courts never gave a reasoned decision 25 addressing his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, and that the California 26 courts should be ordered to do so. (Objections [ECF No. 32] at 2-4.) The Court 27 has no authority to order such relief. “[F]ederal courts have no authority to impose 28 mandatory opinion-writing standards on state courts.” Johnson v. Williams, 568 Dockets.Justia.com 1 U.S. 289, 300 (2013). And although Petitioner further contends that he raised an 2 ineffective assistance of counsel claim on direct appeal that went unaddressed by 3 the California courts, the record shows, to the contrary, that Petitioner did not raise 4 a freestanding claim of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal. 5 (Lodgment No. 6 at 3-7.) Rather, he raised such a claim in his state habeas petition 6 before the California Supreme Court (Lodgment No. 12 at 5, 7), which summarily 7 denied it (Lodgment No. 13). The mere fact that the California Supreme Court 8 issued a summary denial on collateral review, without a statement of reasons, 9 affords no basis for federal habeas relief. See Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 10 99 (2011) (“[R]equiring a statement of reasons could undercut state practices 11 designed to preserve the integrity of the case-law tradition. The issuance of 12 summary dispositions in many collateral attack cases can enable a state judiciary to 13 concentrate its resources on the cases where opinions are most needed.”). 14 Next, Petitioner asserts that his counsel was ineffective at trial for a number 15 of reasons. These reasons are discussed thoroughly in the Magistrate Judge’s 16 Report and Recommendation. However, in light of Petitioner’s objections, the 17 Court emphasizes a number of points that bear repeating. 18 First, Petitioner objects that his counsel failed to call witnesses on his behalf 19 during the trial. (ECF No. 32 at 6.) As discussed in the Report, even if Petitioner 20 had proven that such witnesses were willing to testify (which he did not prove), 21 Petitioner failed to rebut the presumption that counsel exercised reasonable 22 professional judgment in declining to call witnesses. Moreover, Petitioner fails to 23 establish prejudice: testimony by potential witnesses Fred Castillo, Cornell 24 Hamptom, or Rashawn Mason that they saw a red or burgundy car drive by near the 25 time of the shooting would only challenge eyewitness testimony that there were no 26 other cars driving by the crime scene at this time. It does not challenge other 27 critical portions of testimony by the main eyewitness Watson, who identified 28 Petitioner as the person who backed out of the victim’s car immediately after the 2 1 shots were fired, described Petitioner’s appearance by age and gait, and identified 2 Petitioner’s car by license plate as it drove away. It also does not challenge the 3 positive identification of Petitioner’s car by eyewitnesses Jessie and Stinson. 4 Further, the proposed testimony would be cumulative of a 911 call made by 5 Stinson shortly after the incident. This call, in which Mason can be heard referring 6 to a burgundy car driving by, was played before the jury. In other words, the jury 7 heard the evidence that Petitioner claims would have cast a reasonable doubt 8 concerning his guilt or innocence. See Tinsley v. Borg, 895 F.2d 520, 532 (9th Cir. 9 1990). Thus, Petitioner does not point to any evidence or proposed testimony from 10 these three witnesses creating a reasonable probability of a different outcome. See 11 Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694 (1984). 12 Second, Petitioner objects that his counsel was ineffective for failing to 13 explain to the jury that the evidence of a jailhouse phone call between Petitioner 14 and his girlfriend involved a discussion about Petitioner’s arrest for buying drugs, 15 rather than an admission of premeditation for murder. (ECF No. 32 at 4-6.) At 16 trial, Petitioner’s counsel pointed out to the jury the ambiguity in the jailhouse 17 phone call. Although Petitioner’s girlfriend offered a declaration explaining the 18 jailhouse phone call (ECF No. 21 at 25-26), this evidence was not a part of the state 19 court record. Thus, contrary to Petitioner’s assertion that the declaration “could 20 have been considered” (ECF No. 32 at 5), it could not. See Cullen v. Pinholster, 21 563 U.S. 170, 182 (2011) (“[T]he record under review is limited to the record in 22 existence at the same time i.e., the record before the state court.”). In any event, as 23 Petitioner apparently concedes, his girlfriend’s declaration had “very little impact.” 24 (ECF No. 32 at 5.) In her declaration, Petitioner’s girlfriend did not corroborate 25 Petitioner’s assertion that the jailhouse phone call involved a discussion about his 26 drug arrest. To the contrary, she stated that they had “never discussed anything that 27 has to do with any kind of criminal activity.” (ECF No. 21 at 25.) The Court 28 cannot find that this amounts to ineffective assistance of counsel. 3 1 Finally, Petitioner’s argument that his counsel was ineffective for failing to 2 tell the jury that the murder weapon was used in another crime one year after 3 Petitioner’s arrest is unavailing. However, Petitioner cannot rebut the “strong 4 presumption” that his counsel made a strategic decision to avoid presenting this 5 evidence, because the murder weapon had also been used three weeks prior to the 6 murder. See Richter, 562 U.S. 7 described the shooter’s car as similar to Petitioner’s car. Moreover, cell phone 8 records placed Petitioner in the area where the murder occurred. Thus, Petitioner’s 9 counsel likely made a reasonable strategic decision to avoid mention 10 11 109–10. Witnesses to the earlier murder of the murder weapon so as to prevent the prosecutor from introducing damaging evidence . 12 In sum, Petitioner’s objections (ECF No. 32) are overruled. 13 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that [1] Petitioner’s request for an extension 14 of time to file objections (ECF No. 33) is denied as moot; [2] the Report and 15 Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 27) is accepted and adopted; 16 and [3] Judgment shall be entered denying the Petition and dismissing this action 17 with prejudice. 18 19 January 19, 2022 DATED: _________________ 20 21 22 ___________________________________ STEPHEN V. WILSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28 4
]]>
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.
