Warren Davis v. Covello, No. 2:2019cv07249 - Document 57 (C.D. Cal. 2021)
Court Description: ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 54 by Judge Percy Anderson. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that (1) the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is accepted and adopted; and (2) Judgment shall be entered denying the Petition and dismissing this action with prejudice. (es)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Warren Davis v. Covello Doc. 57 Case 2:19-cv-07249-PA-MAA Document 57 Filed 08/18/21 Page 1 of 4 Page ID #:2509 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WARREN DAVIS, 12 13 14 15 Petitioner, v. Case No. 2:19-cv-07249-PA (MAA) ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE MARCUS POLLARD, Warden, 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 (“Report”) of the 20 United States Magistrate Judge. Further, the Court has engaged in a de novo review 21 of those portions of the Report to which objections have been made. For the 22 following reasons, Petitioner’s objections are overruled. 23 Petitioner objects that the Report relied solely on the victims’ accounts to set 24 out a factual summary of the crimes, and he disputes several details of that factual 25 summary. (Objections [ECF No. 56] at 3-8.) Petitioner’s valid plea of no contest, 26 however, relinquishes any claim challenging the facts of the charged crimes. See 27 Class v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 798, 805 (2018) (citing United States v. Broce, 28 488 U.S. 563, 573-74 (1989)). Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:19-cv-07249-PA-MAA Document 57 Filed 08/18/21 Page 2 of 4 Page ID #:2510 1 Petitioner objects that he is not guilty of the crimes and that his plea of no 2 contest, as his counsel explained it to him, “was not an admission of guilt, but 3 instead a settlement of the case,” and “nothing more.” (ECF No. 56 at 13.) 4 Relatedly, Petitioner objects that he never admitted to the factual basis for the 5 charged crimes. (Id. at 33; see also Petition [ECF No. 1] at 530.) To the extent that 6 Petitioner is claiming that there was no factual basis for his plea, the claim is not 7 cognizable on federal habeas review. Loftis v. Almager, 704 F.3d 645, 647-48 (9th 8 Cir. 2012) (holding that petitioner’s claim that the record failed to present a factual 9 basis for his no contest plea was not cognizable in federal habeas corpus). Rather, 10 it is state law that requires a trial court to find a factual basis for a negotiated plea of 11 no contest, based on information regarding the factual basis supplied by the 12 defendant or his counsel. People v. Voit, 200 Cal. App. 4th 1353, 1365 (2011). 13 Such information amounts to a concession by the defendant of the existence of a 14 factual basis for the plea, even if the concession is supplied by his counsel. Id. at 15 1366, 1371 n.14. Here, the state trial court complied with the state law requirement 16 by finding a factual basis for Petitioner’s plea. (Lodged Document No. 1 [ECF No. 17 15-1] at 7.) Petitioner’s allegation that he pled no contest without any concession 18 to the factual basis for the plea is contrary to state law and the record. 19 Petitioner objects that the Report failed to discuss properly Ground Two, in 20 which he claimed that his defense counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate 21 the victims’ backgrounds. (ECF No. 56 at 11, 13-20.) However, Petitioner has 22 never offered any evidence for his numerous allegations about the victims’ 23 backgrounds that his counsel supposedly should have investigated. See Dunn v. 24 Reeves, 141 S. Ct. 2405, 2410 (2021) (emphasizing that the burden of rebutting the 25 presumption that defense counsel performed reasonably “‘rests squarely on the 26 defendant,’ and ‘[i]t should go without saying that the absence of evidence cannot 27 overcome [it].’”) (alterations in original) (quoting Burt v. Titlow, 571 U.S. 12, 22- 28 23 (2013)). 2 Case 2:19-cv-07249-PA-MAA Document 57 Filed 08/18/21 Page 3 of 4 Page ID #:2511 1 Petitioner objects that the Report unreasonably rejected Ground Three, in 2 which he claimed that his plea was coerced because information was withheld from 3 him, both by the prosecutor and by his defense counsel. (ECF No. 56 at 20-29.) As 4 to the prosecutor, Petitioner’s argument fails because it is based on the incorrect 5 assumption that the prosecutor had a constitutional duty to disclose material 6 impeachment evidence. See United States v. Ruiz, 536 U.S. 622, 633 (2002) 7 (holding that “the Constitution does not require the Government to disclose 8 material impeachment evidence prior to entering a plea agreement with a criminal 9 defendant”). As to defense counsel, Petitioner’s argument fails because it is 10 contradicted by the record. Petitioner claims that counsel withheld information of 11 significant inconsistencies in the victim’s accounts: most notably, the victim 12 allegedly told the police that the charged sexual acts were consensual. (ECF No. 56 13 at 21, 27.) The record shows, to the contrary, that the victim repeatedly and 14 consistently told the police that Petitioner had forced her engage in the sexual acts 15 by threatening her with a hunting knife. (ECF No. 1 at 171-72, 180-81, 189.) 16 Petitioner objects that the Report unreasonably rejected Ground Four, in 17 which he claimed that he was mentally incompetent to plead no contest. (ECF No. 18 56 at 29-36.) Petitioner alleges that, despite taking powerful medications, he 19 continued to suffer from severe hallucinations. (ECF No. 56 at 30-32.) A 20 psychiatrist found, however, that Petitioner’s reported hallucinations “appear to be 21 poorly described and inconsistent with a genuine mental illness.” (ECF No. 1 at 22 330.) The psychiatrist also concluded that Petitioner did not appear to have a major 23 mental disorder and that, even if his alleged symptoms were taken “at face value,” 24 he still was competent to stand trial. (Id.) Thus, the evidence of Petitioner’s mental 25 symptoms did not undermine the validity of his plea. See Doe v. Woodford, 508 26 F.3d 563, 571 (9th Cir. 2007) (rejecting claim that a plea was involuntary due to the 27 petitioner’s mental state, where a physician found no mental disorder and 28 concluded he was competent to stand trial). 3 Case 2:19-cv-07249-PA-MAA Document 57 Filed 08/18/21 Page 4 of 4 Page ID #:2512 1 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that (1) the Report and Recommendation of 2 the Magistrate Judge is accepted and adopted; and (2) Judgment shall be entered 3 denying the Petition and dismissing this action with prejudice. 4 5 DATED: August 18, 2021 6 7 8 ___________________________________ PERCY ANDERSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 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.
