Kwang Chol Joy v. S. Hatton, No. 8:2017cv01195 - Document 42 (C.D. Cal. 2020)
Court Description: ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE 32 by Judge Josephine L. Staton. IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that judgment be entered denying the Petition and dismissing this action with prejudice. (es)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Kwang Chol Joy v. S. Hatton Doc. 42 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 KWANG CHOL JOY, 13 Petitioner, 14 v. 15 16 CRAIG KOENIG, Acting Warden, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. SACV 17-1195-JLS (JPR) ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 19 The Court has reviewed the Petition, records on file, and 20 Report and Recommendation of U.S. Magistrate Judge, which 21 recommends that judgment be entered denying the Petition and 22 dismissing this action with prejudice. 23 filed Objections to the R. & R., in which he mostly simply repeats 24 arguments from his Petition and Traverse. 25 On May 18, 2020, Petitioner For instance, Petitioner continues to argue that “jury 26 selection error” deprived him of a fair trial. (Objs. at 9.) He 27 does not object to the Magistrate Judge’s finding that habeas 28 relief is not warranted on his claim that the trial court employed 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 an improper voir dire procedure. (See R. & R. at 29-31.) 2 he contends that in rejecting his alternative argument that he was 3 deprived of his constitutional right to a “petit jury that is as 4 near an approximation of the ideal cross-section of the community 5 as the process of random draw permits” (Pet. at 25), the Magistrate 6 Judge incorrectly stated that defense counsel had not challenged 7 the jury pool on that basis. 8 moved to dismiss the jury pool because it was “no longer 9 representative of the community” given how voir dire had unfolded (Objs. at 9). Rather, But although counsel 10 (Pet., Ex. 1 at 4), he never argued, as the Magistrate Judge 11 recognized (see R. & R. at 32), that the procedure 12 unconstitutionally produced an “all Caucasian” jury pool or jury 13 (Pet. at 25). 14 of either, and Petitioner has not submitted any evidence on that 15 score, as the Magistrate Judge also recognized. 16 32.) 17 a prima facie showing that any protected group was not adequately 18 represented in the jury pool or was disproportionately excluded as 19 a result of voir dire. 20 The record does not reflect the racial composition (See R. & R. at Thus, she correctly found that Petitioner had failed to make (See id. at 31-33.) Petitioner also continues to maintain that the prosecution 21 failed to disclose favorable evidence to the defense. 22 7.) 23 Petitioner’s unexhausted claim, improperly raised for the first 24 time in an unauthorized addendum to the Traverse, that the 25 prosecution found and failed to turn over Ramos’s missing cell 26 phone. 27 that claim in his objections (see Objs. at 5-6) fails for the same 28 reasons. (Objs. at 5- To start, the Magistrate Judge correctly refused to consider (See R. & R. at 33 n.8.) Petitioner’s attempt to press Moreover, he has not shown that any of the evidence the 2 1 prosecution purportedly failed to disclose would have been 2 favorable to his defense or that an evidentiary hearing might so 3 establish. 4 evidence must have been “favorable” (id. at 6) does not satisfy his 5 burden. 1 His conclusory assertion that the allegedly suppressed 6 Petitioner’s other objections are similarly conclusory. 7 instance, he asserts that the Magistrate Judge improperly rejected 8 his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim, arguing that if 9 counsel had investigated Ramos’s allegedly missing phone records For 10 the results “would have been in [his] favor.” 11 provides no basis for that conclusion. 12 repeats that counsel was ineffective for not calling an expert to 13 contradict a prosecution witness’s testimony that chemicals found 14 in Ramos’s blood were produced postmortem (id. at 5), there is no 15 reason to believe any expert would have so testified, and, as the 16 Magistrate Judge found, evidence that Ramos was poisoned would only 17 have further inculpated Petitioner (see R. & R. at 57). 2 18 there any reason to believe that additional analysis of blood found 19 on Ramos’s pajamas would have been exculpatory. 20 who compared the blood to samples of Ramos’s and Petitioner’s DNA 21 testified that it was consistent with Ramos’s and ruled out 22 Petitioner as its source. (Id. at 3.) But he Likewise, although he Nor is The DNA analyst (See Lodged Doc. 2, 2 Rep.’s Tr. at 366, 23 1 24 25 Petitioner contends that the Court should liberally construe his pleadings on account of his pro se status. (Objs. at 2.) But his burden to establish entitlement to federal habeas relief is not lessened because he represents himself. 26 2 27 28 Contrary to Petitioner’s assertion (see Objs. at 4), the Magistrate Judge correctly noted that his counsel did call an expert witness — the crime-lab pathologist who performed Ramos’s autopsy and who was not called as a witness by the prosecution (see Lodged Doc. 2, 2 Rep.’s Tr. at 444, 454). 3 1 368, 372-73.) 2 Ramos’s (Objs. at 4) is and was, as the Magistrate Judge recognized 3 (see R. & R. at 55 n.15), based on a misstatement by the prosecutor 4 that was promptly corrected. 5 Bill 1437 (see Objs. at 10), but that law, which amended 6 California’s felony-murder rule and went into effect after 7 Petitioner’s conviction became final, has no relevance to this 8 case. 9 Petitioner’s insistence that the blood was not Finally, Petitioner refers to Senate Having reviewed de novo those portions of the R. & R. to which 10 Petitioner objects, the Court agrees with and accepts the findings 11 and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. 12 ORDERED that judgment be entered denying the Petition and 13 dismissing this action with prejudice. IT THEREFORE IS 14 15 16 17 DATED: September 2, 2020 JOSEPHINE L. STATON U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE 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.
