Schoppe-Rico v. Horel, No. 3:2007cv05416 - Document 36 (N.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY. Signed by Judge JEFFREY S. WHITE on 11/15/10. (jjoS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/15/2010)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Schoppe-Rico v. Horel Doc. 36 1 2 3 4 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 11 12 ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY Petitioner, 9 10 No. C 07-5416 JSW (PR) JOHN SCHOPPE-RICO, vs. ROBERT A. HOREL, Warden, Respondent. / 13 14 This is a habeas corpus case filed pro se by a state prisoner pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 15 2254. The court ordered respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted. 16 Respondent has filed an answer and a memorandum of points and authorities in support 17 of it, and has lodged exhibits with the court. Petitioner has responded with a traverse. 18 For the reasons set out below, the petition is denied. 19 BACKGROUND 20 A jury in Contra Costa County Superior Court convicted Petitioner of first-degree 21 murder, see Cal. Penal Code § 187, with an enhancement for personal use and intentional 22 discharge of a firearm causing death, see id. at § 12022.53(b), (c), (d); carrying a loaded 23 firearm while an active street gang member on October 17, 2000, see id. at § 24 12031(a)(2)(C); carrying a concealed firearm while an active street gang member on 25 October 17, 2000, see id. at § 12025(a), (b)(3); discharging a firearm at an occupied 26 motor vehicle, see id. at § 246; carrying a loaded firearm while an active street gang 27 member on September 4, 2000, see id. at § 12031(a)(2)(C); and carrying a concealed 28 firearm while an active street gang member on September 4, 2000, see id. at § 12025 (a), Dockets.Justia.com 1 (b)(3). (Ex. 6 (opinion of court of appeal) at 7.)1 With sentence enhancements, he was 2 sentenced to an indeterminate term of twenty-five years to life on count one (murder); a 3 consecutive indeterminate term of twenty-five years to life on the enhancement to count 4 one (intentional discharge of a firearm causing death); a determinate term of seven years 5 on count four (shooting at an occupied motor vehicle); and two terms of two years each 6 on counts two and five (carrying a loaded firearm while an active street gang member), to 7 be served concurrently with the principal determinate term. (Id.) His sentences under 8 counts three and six (carrying a concealed firearm while an active gang member) were 9 stayed. (Id.) Petitioner’s convictions were affirmed on appeal by the California Court of 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 Appeal, which also modified the sentences to run his determinate sentence concurrently 12 with his indeterminate sentence. (Id. at 30.) His petition for review by the California 13 Supreme Court was denied. (Ex. 8.) His collateral attacks in all three levels of the 14 California courts were rejected. 15 Petitioner then filed a habeas petition in this court. It was dismissed with leave to 16 amend. Petitioner amended; the Court dismissed two of his issues and ordered 17 Respondent to show cause on the others. Petitioner’s subsequent motions for leave to 18 amend and his motion for a stay and abeyance were denied because his proposed changes 19 were minor, unnecessary, or in the case of his attempt to reassert claims barred by Stone 20 v. Powell, futile. 21 The part of the court of appeal’s opinion dealing with an issue of first impression 22 regarding the application of California’s street gang firearms statutes, see Cal. Penal Code 23 §§ 12025(a), (b)(3); 12031(a)(2)(c); 12031(a)(2)(c), was published; the remainder was 24 not. See People v. Schoppe-Rico, 140 Cal. App. 4th 1370, n.* (2006). In its opinion the 25 court of appeal set out the facts: 26 27 Citations to “Ex.” are to the record lodged with the court by the Attorney General. 28 1 2 1 A. 2 The Car Wash Shooting 3 On September 4, 2000, appellant's then girlfriend, Jennifer Smith, decided that she wanted to “get away from [appellant] for a while.” Smith arranged to meet a friend, Sharon Fawcett, at a car wash, where Smith got into Fawcett's car and sat in the passenger seat. When Smith told appellant that she intended to leave with Fawcett, appellant demanded that she come home with him instead. Smith refused to do so, and appellant then pulled out his gun and fired four or five shots at Fawcett's car, shooting out two of the tires. 4 5 6 7 8 We will refer to this incident as the “car wash shooting.” Appellant in effect concedes that he did not offer any factual defense at trial to the charges arising out of this incident. 9 B. 10 For the Northern District of California United States District Court The Murder 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 On October 17, 2000, Smith again decided to try to separate from appellant. Appellant followed her out of the house, however, and then ran after her and hit her, knocking her to the ground. Smith sought sanctuary in a nearby stranger's house, but appellant came in after her, hit her again, forced her to leave with him, and threatened to get his gun. At that point, another neighborhood resident, Anita Thompson, who did not know Smith but who had herself been a domestic violence victim, invited Smith into her home. She then loosed her roommate's pit bull into the yard in order to keep appellant at bay. About half an hour later, having ascertained that appellant was no longer in sight, Thompson offered to drive Smith to a friend's house. As the two women drove south on Port Chicago Highway, Smith pointed out appellant standing next to a fence close to a bus stop near the intersection of Port Chicago Highway and Pacifica. 18 19 20 21 Shortly thereafter near the same bus stop, Albert Melton tried to push two heavy shopping carts full of recyclable containers across Port Chicago Highway. Melton's long-time friend, Nick Taylor, saw Melton struggling with the carts and came to his aid. Meanwhile, Nick Taylor's wife, Rita Taylor, went across the street to a small shopping center to run an errand. [FN1. All further references to Taylor are to Nick Taylor. Rita Taylor did not see the shooter.] 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 As Melton and Taylor pushed the shopping carts onto the sidewalk, Melton saw a young Hispanic man leaning on the fence near the bus stop. Melton did not know the young man, and neither he nor Taylor said anything to him or made eye contact with him. Without warning, the young man reached under his shirt, pulled out a gun, and fired five or six shots, some of which hit Taylor, and at least one of which came close enough to Melton to pass through his hat. A passerby, Paul Lancaster, also saw the shooting, and observed that the shooter was using a sawed-off .22 rifle. The shooter pointed the gun at Lancaster and fired a couple of shots, but did not hit him. Both Melton and Lancaster then saw the man cross Port Chicago Highway and jump over a retaining wall into a residential area to the east. Taylor died as a result of the gunshot wounds he sustained. 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Only two of the trial witnesses-Melton and Lancaster-actually saw the man who fired the fatal shots. Lancaster was unable to identify appellant as the shooter in a field show-up shortly after the arrest, [FN2. We note, however, that in Lancaster's trial testimony, he consistently denied having said on the scene that appellant was not, or could not have been, the shooter. Rather, he said the man whom the police showed him shortly after the shooting (i.e., appellant) “could have very easily been” the shooter. Lancaster explained that he was unable to identify appellant as the shooter because he had not seen the shooter's face well enough to identify him based on his features, and the man the police showed him was wearing different clothes and looked taller. He pointed out, however, that he was unsure of the shooter's height, because the shooter was crouching at the time Lancaster saw him firing the shots.] and was not asked to identify him at trial. Melton did identify appellant as the shooter in his trial testimony. He also testified at trial that he had told the police during a field show-up that appellant had been the shooter, although he was wearing different clothes by the time he was arrested. This testimony was undercut, however, by evidence that in Melton's statements to the police, both at the field show-up and at a taped interview a few hours later, Melton was much more equivocal in his identification, saying only that appellant “[c]ould be” the shooter. He also asserted that the shooter had a mustache, whereas appellant had no facial hair. According to the investigating officers, the witnesses at the scene said the shooter had worn brown khaki pants and a dark shirt. [FN3. One of the officers, however, testified that several bystanders identified the shooter as a Hispanic man with a white t-shirt and black pants.] Melton gave a similar description of the shooter's clothes at his taped interview. All of the witnesses described the shooter as Hispanic, and those who mentioned age all indicated that he was young. None of the investigating officers saw anyone in the area other than appellant who matched the description of the perpetrator. In addition, only 10 or 15 minutes passed between when Smith and Thompson saw appellant standing near the bus stop and the time of the shooting, and both women testified that they did not see any other young Hispanic man in the area when they passed the bus stop. 20 21 22 23 24 25 Shortly after the shooting, appellant approached a woman named Lydia Williams, who lived in the neighborhood toward which Melton and Lancaster testified the shooter had walked when he left the scene. Williams was pulling out of her driveway, and appellant asked her to give him a ride; she declined. Williams was suspicious, and when she encountered a police officer shortly thereafter, she told the officer, Deputy Whiddon, about the man she had seen. Williams and Whiddon drove around the neighborhood until they spotted appellant on a nearby street. Whiddon, who was on the scene to investigate the shooting, called for backup and arrested appellant. At the time of his encounter with Williams, and when arrested, appellant was wearing a white t-shirt and black shorts. 26 27 28 That afternoon, a resident at 40 Sharon Drive, in the same neighborhood where appellant was arrested, alerted police to the presence of a gun leaning against a fence in her yard, and some clothing under a nearby bush. The clothing consisted of black pants and a gray, nearly new Pro Spirit brand sweatshirt. 4 At trial, Smith identified the clothing found at 40 Sharon Drive, and linked it to appellant. Smith explained that the black pants belonged to her, and that appellant had been wearing them earlier that morning. She was able to confirm that the pants were hers because a piece of paper in the pocket bore the hospital room number and telephone number of a friend whom she had recently visited in the hospital. The sweatshirt found at 40 Sharon Drive was the same color and brand as a matching sweatshirt and pants outfit that Smith testified she had purchased for appellant shortly before the shooting. During the investigation of the shooting, police seized a pair of matching sweatpants from the front yard of appellant's home. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Smith also testified that appellant owned and frequently carried with him a very distinctive gun, a .22 caliber rifle, which Smith identified as the gun found near 40 Sharon Drive after the murder. The gun had been modified in a unique way by sawing off part of the stock and wrapping the grip in electrical tape. Lancaster testified that the gun used by the shooter was a sawed-off .22 rifle. The prosecution's firearms expert testified that the .22 cartridges and bullets found at the scenes of the murder and the car wash shooting had been compared to those used in test firings from appellant's distinctive gun. The expert concluded that both sets of crime scene cartridges had been fired from appellant's gun, and that the bullets also could have been fired from it, although this could not be determined conclusively. In addition, appellant had gunshot residue on his hands when he was arrested. [FN4. Appellant's trial counsel attributed this fact to appellant's having shot off fireworks and fired his gun during the night immediately preceding the shooting.] 7 8 9 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 13 14 15 (Ex. 6 at 2-6.) DISCUSSION 16 17 I. Standard of Review A district court may not grant a petition challenging a state conviction or sentence 18 19 on the basis of a claim that was reviewed on the merits in state court unless the state 20 court's adjudication of the claim: "(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or 21 involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined 22 by the Supreme Court of the United States; or (2) resulted in a decision that was based on 23 an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State 24 court proceeding." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). The first prong applies both to questions of law 25 and to mixed questions of law and fact, Williams (Terry) v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 407-09 26 (2000), while the second prong applies to decisions based on factual determinations, 27 Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 340 (2003). 28 /// 5 1 A state court decision is “contrary to” Supreme Court authority, that is, falls under 2 the first clause of § 2254(d)(1), only if “the state court arrives at a conclusion opposite to 3 that reached by [the Supreme] Court on a question of law or if the state court decides a 4 case differently than [the Supreme] Court has on a set of materially indistinguishable 5 facts.” Williams (Terry), 529 U.S. at 412-13. A state court decision is an “unreasonable 6 application of” Supreme Court authority, falling under the second clause of § 2254(d)(1), 7 if it correctly identifies the governing legal principle from the Supreme Court’s decisions 8 but “unreasonably applies that principle to the facts of the prisoner’s case.” Id. at 413. 9 The federal court on habeas review may not issue the writ “simply because that court concludes in its independent judgment that the relevant state-court decision applied 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 clearly established federal law erroneously or incorrectly.” Id. at 411. Rather, the 12 application must be “objectively unreasonable” to support granting the writ. Id. at 409. 13 Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2), a state court decision “based on a factual 14 determination will not be overturned on factual grounds unless objectively unreasonable 15 in light of the evidence presented in the state-court proceeding.” Miller-El, 537 U.S. 322 16 at 340; see also Torres v. Prunty, 223 F.3d 1103, 1107 (9th Cir. 2000). When there is no reasoned opinion from the highest state court to consider the 17 18 petitioner’s claims, the court looks to the last reasoned opinion. See Ylst v. Nunnemaker, 19 501 U.S. 797, 801-06 (1991); Shackleford v. Hubbard, 234 F.3d 1072, 1079, n. 2 (9th 20 Cir.2000). 21 II. 22 Claims Presented The Court dismissed two issues in the order to show cause because those claims 23 were barred by Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 481-82, 494 (1976), and ordered 24 Respondent to show cause why the petition should not be granted on Petitioner’s 25 contentions that: (1) trial counsel was ineffective because of conflicts, and failed to 26 investigate an alibi defense; (2) trial counsel was ineffective in failing to properly present 27 a defense regarding injuries to Petitioner’s hands; (3) the prosecutor withheld exculpatory 28 evidence; (4) trial counsel was ineffective in failing to present a defense of intoxication; 6 1 (5) the jury committed misconduct; (7) trial counsel was ineffective in failing to object to, 2 seek discovery of, or move to dismiss the charges of shooting at an occupied vehicle; (8) 3 appellate counsel was ineffective in failing to argue trial counsel’s ineffectiveness; (9) the 4 admission of evidence from a “scent discrimination lineup” violated due process; (10) the 5 trial court erred in failing to grant a motion under California Penal Code § 111.8.1 with 6 respect to the street gang and firearm counts; (12) the instructions regarding the offenses 7 of street gang firearm possession were fatally deficient; and (13) there was insufficient 8 evidence to support his conviction for premeditated and deliberate first degree murder. 9 Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Claims Petitioner’s issues one, two, four and seven from the list above are ineffective 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 A. assistance of trial counsel claims, and issue eight is an ineffective assistance of appellate 12 counsel claim. They will be addressed in this section. 13 A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is cognizable as a claim of denial of 14 the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, which guarantees not only assistance, but effective 15 assistance of counsel. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 686 (1984). In order to 16 prevail on a Sixth Amendment ineffectiveness of counsel claim, a petitioner must 17 establish that counsel's performance was deficient, i.e., that it fell below an "objective 18 standard of reasonableness" under prevailing professional norms. Id. at 687-88. Second, 19 he or she must establish that he was prejudiced by counsel's deficient performance, i.e., 20 that "there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the 21 result of the proceeding would have been different." Id. at 694. A reasonable probability 22 is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome. Id. 23 It is unnecessary for a federal court considering a habeas ineffective assistance 24 claim to address the prejudice prong of the Strickland test if the petitioner cannot even 25 establish incompetence under the first prong. Siripongs v. Calderon, 133 F.3d 732, 737 26 (9th Cir. 1998). Similarly, a court need not determine whether counsel's performance was 27 deficient before examining the prejudice suffered by the defendant as the result of the 28 alleged deficiencies. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697. 7 1. 1 Claim One a. 2 Conflict 3 In his statement of his first issue Petitioner contends that counsel was ineffective 4 because she suffered from a conflict. In the statement of facts that follows that headline 5 statement of the issue, however, he also discusses counsel’s failure to raise an 6 intoxication defense, her failure to interview witnesses, and her failure to use Petitioner’s 7 hand injuries as a defense. Petitioner also raised the hand injury and the intoxication 8 defense claims as separate issues, so they are discussed in the appropriate sections for 9 those claims below; the other points will be briefly addressed in this section. The Sixth Amendment guarantee of assistance of counsel includes a right to 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 counsel's undivided loyalty. Wood v. Georgia, 450 U.S. 261, 271-72 (1981). A criminal 12 defendant accordingly is entitled under the Sixth Amendment to an effective attorney 13 who can represent him competently and without conflicting interests. Garcia v. Bunnell, 14 33 F.3d 1193, 1195 (9th Cir. 1994). Petitioner contends that his counsel “misrepresent[ed] [his] culpability in order to 15 16 protect others.” (Pet. at 27.) An "actual conflict of interest" only occurs when counsel 17 "actively represented conflicting interests." Strickland, 466 U.S. at 692. A theoretical or 18 potential conflict is insufficient to constitute actual conflict; instead counsel must have 19 actively represented conflicting interests. Bragg v. Galaza, 242 F.3d 1082, 1087 (9th 20 Cir.), amended, 253 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir. 2001); Morris v. California, 966 F.2d 448, 455 21 (9th Cir. 1991). A petitioner must prove an actual conflict through a factual showing in 22 the record. Bragg, 242 F.3d at 1087; Morris, 966 F.2d at 455. Petitioner has completely failed to provide facts that would support his contention 23 24 that his counsel suffered from a conflict. He provides vague and conclusory allegations 25 that counsel’s representation was affected by her desire to protect higher-up gang 26 members, but there is absolutely no evidence of this. He thus has failed to establish the 27 factual basis for this claim, and it is without merit. 28 /// 8 b. 1 Failure to Interview Witnesses Petitioner also contends in this issue that counsel failed to interview witnesses. 2 3 Petitioner says that counsel should have interviewed “Dan,” identified as the owner of a 4 red Chrysler, and “Norteno East Bay Locos members.” He does not, however, say what 5 these purported witnesses would have said and how it would have made it reasonably 6 probable that there would be a different outcome. He thus has failed to establish that 7 counsel’s performance was deficient or that he was prejudiced. This claim is without 8 merit. See Bragg v. Galaza, 242 F.3d 1082, 1087 (9th Cir.), amended, 253 F.3d 1150 9 (9th Cir. 2001) (defendant's mere speculation that witness might have given helpful information if interviewed not enough to establish ineffective assistance). 2. 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 Claim Two – Evidence of Injury to Hand 12 In his second claim, Petitioner contends that counsel was ineffective in not arguing 13 that injuries to his hand and arm made it physically difficult or impossible for him to have 14 committed the shooting, and in failing to use this to obtain a plea bargain. 15 Petitioner alleges that on September 20, 2000, he accidently shot himself in the 16 hand. (Pet. at 30.) The bullet traveled into his forearm and did not exit. (Id.) He was 17 treated at a hospital, where a fixation screw was inserted to repair his injured wrist. (Id.) 18 The murder of which Petitioner was convicted occurred on October 17, 2000, about a 19 month after Petitioner’s shooting accident. Petitioner contends that the “exclusion” of evidence of the injury violated his 20 21 rights, but in fact evidence of it was not excluded. Defense counsel referred to it in her 22 opening (RT 1263), and Petitioner’s ex-girlfriend testified about it (RT 1847-49), as did a 23 Contra Costa County sheriff’s deputy (RT 2283-84). It may be that Petitioner is 24 confusing admission of evidence of the accidental shooting with evidence that was 25 excluded, that he lied to the deputy investigating the accidental shooting, telling the 26 deputy that someone else had shot him. (RT 2284-85.) Counsel’s success in excluding 27 that bit of information was not, of course, deficient performance. 28 /// 9 1 2 3 It also may be that Petitioner is trying to argue that counsel was ineffective in not relying upon his injury as support for his innocence. It is true that counsel did not mention the earlier injury in closing, much less This decision – whether to risk emphasizing Petitioner’s possession of the gun and what 6 Respondent calls his “irresponsible” use of it – is quintessentially a tactical one, and 7 Petitioner has not overcome the presumption that it was sound trial strategy. See 8 Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689 (court considering ineffective assistance of counsel claim 9 "must indulge a strong presumption that counsel's conduct falls within the wide range of 10 reasonable professional assistance; that is, the defendant must overcome the presumption 11 For the Northern District of California forcefully argue that he would have been physically incapable of shooting the victim. 5 United States District Court 4 that, under the circumstances, the challenged action might be considered sound trial 12 strategy."); Brodit v. Cambra, 350 F.3d 985, 994 (9th Cir. 2003) (state court reasonably 13 concluded that trial attorney provided effective assistance of counsel where attorney 14 declined to present evidence favorable to defense out of concern that it would open door 15 to unfavorable evidence). Counsel’s decision not use the argument could not be deficient 16 performance. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Furthermore, counsel’s failure to use the argument was not prejudicial. As the court of appeal said in finding no prejudice from admission of a “dog scent” lineup: We concur in appellant’s assessment that the eyewitness descriptions and identification testimony in this case were less than compelling. What appellant’s argument overlooks, however, is that the prosecution had additional, much more persuasive evidence upon which to rely in identifying appellant as the perpetrator of the murder. The cartridges found at the murder scene, as well as those from the car wash shooting, were shown to have been fired from appellant’s distinctive gun, which matches Lancaster’s description of the shooter’s weapon. Smith’s testimony linked appellate to the clothing that was found lying near the gun. Appellant was arrested, with gunshot residue on his hands, in the neighborhood toward which the shooter fled the scene, near the location where the gun and clothing were abandoned. No other person matching the shooter’s description was seen in the area by any of the responding police officers or other witnesses. 28 10 1 (Ex. 6 at 9.) Given this evidence, it was not reasonably probable that the case would have 2 had a different outcome had counsel used the argument. 3 4 For these reasons, counsel was not ineffective in failing to use the injury evidence more extensively.2 3. Claim Four – Intoxication 5 6 In Petitioner’s claim numbered “(4)” in the list above, which was his fifth claim in 7 the petition, he contends that counsel was ineffective in failing to present a defense of 8 intoxication or mental illness. He contends that counsel should have argued that his 9 intoxication made the crime involuntary manslaughter, not murder. (Pet. at 43-45.) Respondent correctly contends that this claim is not exhausted. Although the court 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 cannot grant relief on a claim that is unexhausted, such a claim can be denied. See 28 12 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2). That will be done here. 13 Counsel must be afforded wide discretion in abandoning inconsistent or 14 unsupported defenses. Knowles v. Mirzayance, 129 S. Ct. 1411, 1420 (2009). 15 Petitioner’s defense at trial was that he was not even present at the scene, a contention 16 which would be inconsistent with a voluntary intoxication defense. Although alterative 17 defenses are in theory possible, wise counsel would be understandably reluctant to 18 present an “I didn’t do it, and if I did, I was high” defense. Counsel’s tactical decision 19 here was not ineffective.3 See Bean v. Calderon, 163 F.3d 1073, 1081-82 (9th Cir. 1998) 20 In this issue Petitioner also presents the unrelated claim that counsel was ineffective in not informing him that the prosecution had made a plea offer, or in not 22 asking for one. There is no evidence in the record that a plea offer was made, or that counsel failed to inform Petitioner of any plea offer, or that she did not try to negotiate 23 one. This claim is summarily denied. See Rule 4, Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. 21 2 24 California has abolished by statute the defenses of intoxication and diminished capacity, see Cal. Penal Code §§ 22, 28(b), but voluntary intoxication short of 26 unconsciousness still can negate the express malice element of murder. See People v. Turk, 164 Cal. App. 4th 1361, 1374-78 (2008). It cannot, however, be used to reduce 27 implied malice murder to manslaughter. Id. In consequence, the case upon which Petitioner relies, People v. Weber, 228 Cal. App. 3d 1146 (1991), no longer is good 28 law to the extent it held that an instruction on involuntary manslaughter must be given 25 3 11 1 (counsel not ineffective in failing to present diminished capacity defense when main 2 defense theory was the inconsistent one of alibi). 3 4 4. Claim Seven – Failure to File Motion to Dismiss Section 246 of the California Penal Code establishes the offense of discharging a 5 firearm at an occupied motor vehicle, one of the offences of which Petitioner was 6 convicted. In its order to show cause the Court characterized this issue as being “trial 7 counsel was ineffective in failing to object to, seek discovery of, or move to dismiss the 8 charges under California Penal Code § 246.” 9 Habeas corpus petitions must meet heightened pleading requirements. McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994). An application for a federal writ of habeas corpus 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 filed by a prisoner who is in state custody pursuant to a judgment of a state court must 12 “specify all the grounds for relief which are available to the petitioner ... and shall set 13 forth in summary form the facts supporting each of the grounds thus specified.” Rule 14 2(c), Rules Governing § 2254 Cases. “‘[N]otice’ pleading is not sufficient, for the 15 petition is expected to state facts that point to a ‘real possibility of constitutional error.’” 16 Rule 4 Advisory Committee Notes (quoting Aubut v. Maine, 431 F.2d 688, 689 (1st Cir. 17 1970). “Habeas petitions which appear on their face to be legally insufficient are subject 18 to summary dismissal.” Calderon v. United States Dist. Court (Nicolaus), 98 F.3d 1102, 19 1108 (9th Cir. 1996) (Schroeder, J., concurring). To the extent Petitioner claims that his 20 rights were violated by counsel’s “failing to object to [and] seek discovery of” the Section 21 246 charges, his failure to provide any facts on these points or an explanation of the 22 claims is fatal to them under the above standard. 23 As with many of his claims, Petitioner’s claim seven is a nearly incomprehensible 24 mishmash of various allegations. However, it appears that the heart of this claim is a 25 contention that counsel failed to move to dismiss the Section 246 charge on grounds he 26 was not arraigned within the time required by California law. See Cal. Penal Code §§ 27 28 when a defense of voluntary intoxication is raised. Turk, 164 Cal. App. 4th at 137677 (discussing Weber). 12 1 825(a) (“[T]he defendant shall in all cases be taken before the magistrate without 2 unnecessary delay, and, in any event, within 48 hours after his or her arrest, excluding 3 Sundays and holidays;” 849(a) (“When an arrest is made without a warrant by a peace 4 officer or private person, the person arrested, if not otherwise released, shall, without 5 unnecessary delay, be taken before the nearest or most accessible magistrate in the county 6 in which the offense is triable, and a complaint stating the charge against the arrested 7 person shall be laid before such magistrate.”). 8 A lawyer need not file a motion that he or she knows to be meritless on the facts 9 and the law. Put simply, trial counsel cannot have been ineffective for failing to raise a meritless motion. Juan H. v. Allen, 408 F.3d 1262, 1273 (9th Cir. 2005); see also Wilson 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 v. Henry, 185 F.3d 986, 990 (9th Cir. 1999) (to show prejudice under Strickland from 12 failure to file a motion, petitioner must show that (1) had counsel filed the motion, it is 13 reasonable that the trial court would have granted it as meritorious, and (2) had the 14 motion been granted, it is reasonable that there would have been an outcome more 15 favorable to the petitioner). 16 Ordinarily, noncompliance with the speedy arraignment statutes goes to the 17 legality of the detention, not the legality of the prosecution, so is not grounds for 18 dismissal of charges under California law.4 People v. Valenzuela, 86 Cal. App.3d 427, 19 430-31 (Cal.1978). It is apparent that if counsel had moved to dismiss on speedy 20 arraignment grounds the motion would have been denied. That is, counsel was not 21 ineffective, and Petitioner was not prejudiced. This claim is without merit. 22 5. 23 The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees a 24 Claim Eight – Ineffective Assistance of Appellate Counsel criminal defendant the effective assistance of counsel on his first appeal as of right. See 25 If a speedy arraignment claim is raised after conviction, the violation may be grounds for reversal if the defendant can show that he or she was prejudiced by the delay. Id. Here, of course, Petitioner’s contention is that counsel should have moved 27 to dismiss the charges before conviction, where it appears the rule is as stated above, i.e., the delay is not grounds for dismissal. In any event, he does not allege or show 28 prejudice. 4 26 13 1 Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U.S. 387, 391-405 (1985). Claims of ineffective assistance of 2 appellate counsel are reviewed according to the standard set out in Strickland, 466 U.S. 3 668. Miller v. Keeney, 882 F.2d 1428, 1433 (9th Cir. 1989); United States v. Birtle, 792 4 F.2d 846, 847 (9th Cir. 1986). A defendant therefore must show that counsel's advice fell 5 below an objective standard of reasonableness and that there is a reasonable probability 6 that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, he would have prevailed on appeal. Miller, 7 882 F.2d at 1434 & n.9 (citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688, 694; Birtle, 792 F.2d at 849). Appellate counsel does not have a constitutional duty to raise every nonfrivolous 8 9 issue requested by defendant. Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745, 751-54 (1983). The weeding out of weaker issues is widely recognized as one of the hallmarks of effective 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 appellate advocacy. Id. at 1434. Appellate counsel therefore will frequently remain 12 above an objective standard of competence and have caused his client no prejudice for the 13 same reason--because he or she declined to raise a weak issue. Id. Because the Court determines in this ruling that all of Petitioner’s other claims 14 15 lack merit, his appellate counsel’s failure to raise them on appeal was neither deficient 16 nor prejudicial under the Strickland standard. Consequently, Petitioner did not receive 17 ineffective assistance of counsel on appeal, and he is not entitled to habeas relief on this 18 claim. 19 B. Brady Claim 20 In his third claim, Petitioner asserts that the prosecutor withheld exculpatory 21 evidence. As with his other issues, this one includes claims unrelated to the ostensible 22 subject of the claim, and is in general difficult to understand. 23 In Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), the Supreme Court held that "the 24 suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates 25 due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of 26 the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution." Id. at 87. The Supreme Court has since 27 made clear that the duty to disclose such evidence applies even when there has been no 28 request by the accused, United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 107 (1976), and that the duty encompasses impeachment evidence as well as exculpatory evidence, United States v. 14 1 Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 676 (1985). Evidence is “material” under Brady "if there is a 2 reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of 3 the proceeding would have been different. A 'reasonable probability' is a probability 4 sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome." Id. at 682. “There are three 5 components of a true Brady violation: [t]he evidence at issue must be favorable to the 6 accused, either because it is exculpatory, or because it is impeaching; that evidence must 7 have been suppressed by the State, either willfully or inadvertently; and prejudice must 8 have ensued.” Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263, 281-82 (1999). 9 The prosecution has a duty to learn of, and disclose, any exculpatory evidence known to others acting on the government's behalf. Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 437- 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 38 (1995). 12 Delays in disclosure of Brady material do not deprive an accused of due process, 13 such as where disclosure is made as late as the pretrial conference, see Reiger v. 14 Christensen, 789 F.2d 1425, 1432 (9th Cir. 1986), or even during trial where the 15 disclosure, though tardy, is still of value to the accused, see United States v. Vgeri, 51 16 F.3d 876, 880 (9th Cir. 1995); see also United States v. Ruiz, 536 U.S. 622 (2002) (due 17 process does not require disclosure of identity and impeachment evidence regarding 18 government informants early in pretrial proceedings). Due process requires only the 19 disclosure of exculpatory material in sufficient time to permit defendant to make effective 20 use of the material. LaMere v. Risley, 827 F.2d 622, 625 (9th Cir. 1987). 21 Prejudice will be found from a Brady violation if the prosecutor’s non-disclosure 22 of favorable evidence caused the defendant to receive an unfair trial, that is, if the missing 23 evidence could reasonably be taken to put the whole case in such a different light as to 24 undermine confidence in the verdict. See Kyles, 514 U.S. at 434-35. 25 One of Petitioner’s claims in this section of his petition is that the prosecution 26 should have preserved evidence of his hand injury, such as by taking photographs of it. 27 (Pet. at 35.) This is, of course, not a Brady claim, but is a claim that evidence was not 28 created and then preserved. Although it is true that the government has a duty to preserve 15 1 material evidence, California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479, 489 (1984), it does not have a 2 duty to create it. This claim is without merit. 3 Petitioner also asserts that the prosecution withheld information by “telling [Albert 4 Melton] not to talk to [the] public defender.” (Id.) The record, however, establishes that 5 Melton was not told that he could not speak with the public defender’s investigator, but 6 that he “didn’t have to.” (CT (preliminary hearing transcript) at 327-28.) This claim is 7 rejected. 8 Petitioner also refers to a mysterious “suspect Dan,” but does not say who this was that the prosecution failed to compare some hairs found on clothing to Dan’s hair is not a 11 For the Northern District of California or what the prosecution knew about him that it did not disclose. His apparent contention 10 United States District Court 9 claim that evidence was not turned over, but rather that the prosecution did not create 12 evidence for the defense. The Ninth Circuit has held that a bad faith failure to collect 13 exculpatory evidence can be a violation of due process, but noted in doing so that no 14 Supreme Court case has so held. Miller v. Vasquez, 868 F.2d 1116, 1120-21 (9th 15 Cir.1989); see also Cunningham v. Wenatchee, 345 F.3d 802, 812 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing 16 Miller); White v. Tamlyn, 961 F.Supp. 1047, 106 n.12 (E.D. Mich.1997) (describing 17 Miller as “an aberration” and noting that an obligation to collect exculpatory evidence is 18 not “clearly established” for habeas purposes). 19 Two indicia of bad faith on the part of the police are “official animus” and a 20 “conscious effort to suppress exculpatory evidence.” Trombetta, 467 U.S. at 488. 21 Plaintiff must “put forward specific, nonconclusory factual allegations that establish 22 improper motive.” Gausvik v. Perez, 345 F.3d 813, 818 (9th Cir.2003); People of 23 Territory of Guam v. Muna, 999 F.2d 397, 400 (9th Cir.1993) (stating that plaintiff bears 24 the burden of showing the government's bad faith). 25 Petitioner has failed to make showing, or even allegation, of bad faith, and even if 26 he had, failure to collect evidence could not be grounds for habeas relief here because no 27 such obligation is clearly established by Supreme Court authority. This claim is rejected. 28 Petitioner also contends in this claim that “suspect Dan, who owns a red Chrysler,” 16 1 was not “put in a photo lineup,” brought into court, or had his hair compared to 2 unidentified samples from Petitioner’s clothing. (Pet. at 35-36.) This again is a claim 3 that the police and prosecutors failed to develop defense evidence, and for the reasons set 4 out above it also fails. 5 Petitioner also contends that “nurse Vicki” observed his injury from the gun prosecution and her information “was withheld.” Petitioner obviously was aware of her 8 presence and could have called her as a witness had he wished, and he does not say what 9 information was withheld. This claim is frivolous. See United States v. Shaffer, 789 F.2d 10 682, 690 (9th Cir. 1986) (defendant cannot claim Brady violation if"aware of the essential 11 For the Northern District of California accident when she arrived to draw blood, and that she was not listed as a witness by the 7 United States District Court 6 facts enabling him to take advantage of any exculpatory evidence."). 12 Petitioner also contends that the prosecution elicited perjured testimony from 13 Smith, his girlfriend. (Pet. at 37-38.) This is, of course, not a Brady claim, but leaving 14 that aside, Petitioner has failed to provide anything more than his conclusory statement 15 that the testimony was false. This is not sufficient. See Rule 4 Advisory Committee 16 Notes (petition is expected to state facts that point to a ‘real possibility of constitutional 17 error,’” quoting Aubut v. Maine, 431 F.2d 688, 689 (1st Cir. 1970)); United States v. 18 Zuno-Arce, 339 F.3d 886, 889 (9th Cir. 2003) (for Agurs/Napue claim the “petitioner 19 must show that [] the testimony (or evidence) was actually false”). This claim is rejected. 20 C. Jury Misconduct 21 As in his other claims, in this one Petitioner asserts a number of grounds for relief. 22 One of them is that the jury was biased because there were no Mexican-Americans on it, 23 citing Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986). 24 Petitioner did not make a Wheeler/Batson motion at the time the jury was 25 empaneled, nor did he raise the issue on direct review.5 His state habeas petition in the 26 People v. Wheeler, 22 Cal. 3d 258 (1978), is a California state case analogous to the federal case of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1996), which held that 28 purposeful discrimination in the jury selection process violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment Paulino v. Castro, 371 F.3d 1083, 1088 n.4 (9th Cir. 2004). 27 5 17 1 Supreme Court of California, however, has an issue labeled “Jury Misconduct” in which 2 he does not argue that the strikes were discriminatory, but does cite Batson. (Ex. 11 at 3 13.) That may have been sufficient to fairly present the claim. See Peterson v. Lampert, 4 319 F.3d 1153, 1158 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (holding that a federal claim can be fairly 5 presented by citation to state cases analyzing the federal issue). writ of habeas corpus is denied. (See In re Swain (1949) 34 Cal.2d 300, 304; People v. 8 Duvall (1965) 9 Cal.4th 464, 474; In re Dixon (1953) 41 Cal.2d 756; In re Lessard, 9 (1965) 62 Cal.2d 497, 503 (1965); In re Waltreus (1965) 62 Cal.2d 218; In re Lindley 10 (1947) 29 Cal.2d 709.” (Ex. 12 at 1.) Because it is not possible to determine which of 11 For the Northern District of California The California Supreme Court denied the petition as follows: “The petition for 7 United States District Court 6 the procedural grounds represented by the supreme court’s citations applies to which 12 issue in the petition, it cannot be said that the Batson claim was procedurally defaulted. 13 See Calderon v. United States Dist. Court (Bean), 96 F.3d 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 1996) 14 (California Supreme Court order that did not specify which of 39 claims was barred by 15 which of several state rules considered ambiguous and therefore insufficient to preclude 16 federal collateral review). This does, however, leave the question whether a timely 17 objection in trial court is an essential part of a Batson claim. 18 Batson itself speaks of a “timely objection.” Batson, 476 U.S. at 99 (declining to 19 “formulate particular procedures to be followed upon a defendant's timely objection to a 20 prosecutor's challenges”). Then in Ford v. Georgia, 498 U.S. (1991), the Supreme Court 21 said that it would be “a sensible rule” to require that a Batson claim be raised in the 22 period between the selection of the jurors and the administration of the oath, but 23 “declined ... to decide when an objection must be made to be timely ..., recogniz[ing] that 24 local practices would dictate proper deadlines in the contexts of the various procedures 25 used to try criminal cases, and [leaving] it to the trial courts, with their wide ‘variety of 26 jury selection practices,’ to implement Batson in the first instance.” Id. at 423 (quoting 27 28 18 1 Batson, 476 U.S. at 99 n. 24). The reference in this sentence to the “trial courts” makes 2 clear that although the Supreme Court left it to local practices to set deadlines for the 3 assertion of a Batson objection at trial, the Court envisioned that a “timely” objection 4 would occur in the trial court, not in subsequent appellate or collateral proceedings. 5 Petitioner’s failure to make a Batson motion in trial court therefore is fatal to his claim. 6 See McCrory v. Henderson, 82 F.3d 1243, 1249 (2d Cir. 1996) (“failure to object to the 7 discriminatory use of peremptory challenges prior to the conclusion of jury selection 8 waives the objection.”); Wilkerson v. Collins, 950 F.2d 1054, 1063 (5th Cir.1992) 9 (“Wilkerson's failure to timely object at trial is a constitutional bar to his Batson challenge.”); Thomas v. Moore, 866 F.2d 803, 804 (5th Cir. 1989) (timely objection is 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 “requisite to a Batson claim”); Jones v. Butler, 864 F.2d 348, 369 (5th Cir.1988) (“a 12 contemporaneous objection to the use of peremptory challenges to exclude jurors on the 13 basis of race is a necessary predicate to later raising a Batson claim”). 14 Petitioner also accuses the jury of misconduct in talking to the press. (Pet. at 46.) 15 He says that a juror told a newspaper that the testimony of his former girlfriend did not 16 play a role in the verdict, “when it did.” (Id.) Because the statement to the press occurred 17 after the verdict, and because there is no reason the testimony should not have been 18 considered by the jury, this claim is frivolous. 19 Finally, Petitioner makes conclusory allegations that jurors were biased against 20 him because they all were of a different social class than he, and some were military 21 veterans, knew police officers, feared gangs, or, in the case a nurse, had once preserved 22 gunshot residue evidence in another case. (Pet. at 46-48.) 23 Defendants in criminal trials have a Sixth Amendment right to a verdict by 24 impartial jurors. Dyer v. Calderon, 151 F.3d 970, 973 (9th Cir. 1982). There are two 25 kinds of bias recognized as potential Sixth Amendment violations: actual bias and implied 26 bias. Estrada v. Scribner, 512 F.3d 1227, 1240 (9th Cir. 2008). Here, there is no 27 evidence, just Petitioner’s speculations, that the jurors harbored bias in fact. And implied 28 bias arises only in extreme circumstances. The Ninth Circuit has summarized the extreme 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 circumstances it has recognized as potentially giving rise to implied bias: (1) where the juror is apprised of such prejudicial information about the defendant that the court deems it highly unlikely that he can exercise independent judgment even if the juror states he will, (2) the existence of certain relationships between the juror and the defendant, (3) where a juror or his close relatives have been personally involved in a situation involving a similar fact pattern, and (4) where it is revealed that the juror is an actual employee of the prosecuting agency, that the juror is a close relative of one of the participants in the trial or that the juror was a witness or somehow involved in the underlying transaction. 7 Coughlin v. Tailhook Ass’n, 112 F.3d 1052, 1062 (9th Cir.1997). None of these 8 situations is present here. None of the various contentions raised in this claim have merit. 11 For the Northern District of California Petitioner thus has failed to show bias on the part of the jurors. 10 United States District Court 9 D. 12 Petitioner also alleges that “the trial court abused its discretion” in admitting what Scent Lineup 13 he calls “scent discrimination lineup” evidence. The court of appeal set out the 14 background: 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 On the evening of October 17, 2000, the day of the murder, a dog handler and her bloodhound were asked by police to conduct a procedure known as a “scent lineup.” The canine in question had participated successfully in scent lineups during numerous training sessions, but had also sometimes identified an incorrect person before being prompted to try again, and then identifying the correct person. During the scent lineup conducted in this case, appellant and three randomly selected deputy sheriffs stood at locations equidistant from a central point. The dog was places at the central point, where she sniffed an open plastic bag containing the sweatshirt found at 40 Sharon Drive. The dog then smelled each of the men participating in the lineup, and, according to her handler’s interpretation of her actions, identified appellant as the person whose scent matched the scent emanating from the bag. (Ex. 6 at 7-8.) Petitioner contends here, as he did on direct appeal, that the trial court erred in 24 denying his motion to exclude the evidence as not generally accepted in the relevant 25 scientific community under California’s Kelly-Frye test.6 The court of appeal rejected the 26 So called after People v. Kelly, 17 Cal.3d 24, 30-32 (1976), in which California reaffirmed its adherence to what was then the federal test for admission of 28 scientific evidence, as set out in Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013, 1014 (D.C. Cir. 1923). The test subsequently was superceded by statute in California as to polygraph tests, but apparently not as to other scientific evidence. See People v. Wilkinson, 33 27 6 20 1 2 claim on the ground that any error was not prejudicial. (Ex. 6 at 7-9.) This claim is without merit for several reasons. For one thing, the state court’s 3 failure to apply the Kelly/Frye rule, a state evidentiary rule, cannot be the basis for federal 4 habeas relief. See Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68 (1991) (federal habeas 5 unavailable for violations of state law or for alleged error in the interpretation or 6 application of state law). For another, if construed as a federal due process claim it has 7 not been exhausted, so although it can be denied, it cannot be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 8 2254(b)(2). And finally, if construed as a general claim that it was a violation of due 9 process to admit the evidence, it cannot be the basis for habeas relief. See Holley v. Yarborough, 568 F.3d 1091, 1101 (9th Cir. 2009) (finding that trial court's admission of 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 irrelevant pornographic materials was "fundamentally unfair" under Ninth Circuit 12 precedent but not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established 13 Federal law under § 2254(d), hence not a proper basis for habeas relief). 14 E. 15 Petitioner contends that the trial court erred in failing to grant a motion for 16 acquittal under California Penal Code § 111.8.1 with respect to the street gang firearms 17 count, and that the jury instructions on the street gang firearms count was deficient. Both 18 of these claims, which are numbered eleven and twelve in the list above, are based on his 19 contention that an element of the offense is that the firearm was carried in connection 20 with a gang activity – what the court of appeal called the “gang connection element.” 21 (Ex. 6 at 10.) 22 Gang Firearm Count This claim was raised on direct appeal and is the subject of the published portion 23 of the court of appeal opinion in Petitioner’s case. The court of appeal explained the 24 background (the footnotes are in the original): 25 Appellant was charged with four counts of firearm offenses, based 26 Cal. 4th 821, 844-46 (2004). The Frye test was superceded as to admissibility of scientific evidence in federal courts by the test announced in Daubert v. Merrell Dow 28 Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 594-95 (1993). 27 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 on allegations that during both the car wash shooting and the murder, he carried a concealed and loaded firearm. Each of these counts was charged as a felony on the basis of California statutes which we will refer to as the street gang firearm statutes. (§ 12025, subds. (a), (b)(3) [concealed firearm] (§ 12025(b)(3)); § 12031, subd. (a)(2)(C) [loaded firearm] (§ 12031(a)(2)(C).) Each of these statutes makes the proscribed firearm possession a felony where the perpetrator “is an active participant in a 7 criminal street gang, as defined in subdivision (a) of [s]ection 186.22 ....” (§§ 12025(b)(3); 12031(a)(2)(C).) The prosecution presented ample evidence that appellant met the statutory definition of an active participant in a criminal street gang,8FN8 and appellant does not argue otherwise on appeal. Likewise, appellant does not challenge respondent's assertion that his participation in a criminal street gang was with knowledge that the gang's members had engaged in a pattern of criminal gang activity, and that, at least at some point in time, he willfully promoted, furthered, or assisted in felonious conduct by gang members. Rather, he contends that the street gang firearm statutes require that the firearm offenses themselves be committed in connection with the defendant's active participation in a criminal street gang. Based on this interpretation, appellant contends his firearm convictions must be reversed, because this element of the offenses was not established. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 In effect, appellant seeks to add what we will refer to as a “gang connection element” to the street gang firearm statutes. His argument is essentially that the relevant provision in each statute-“[w]here the person [who possesses the firearm] is an active participant in a criminal street gang” (§§ 12025(b)(3), 12031(a)(2)(C), italics added)-should be construed to mean something more specific-“where the person [who possesses the firearm] commits such possession in connection with the person's status as an active participant in a criminal street gang.” Appellant raises this argument in two separate procedural contexts. He argues that (1) his motion for acquittal on the street gang firearm charges, made at the close of the prosecution's case under section 1181.1, 19 Section 186.22, subdivision (a) (§ 186.22(a)) provides as follows: “Any person who actively participates in any criminal street gang with knowledge that its 21 members engage in or have engaged in a pattern of criminal gang activity, and who willfully promotes, furthers, or assists in any felonious criminal conduct by members 22 of that gang, shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail for a period not to exceed one year, or by imprisonment in the state prison for 16 months, or two or three 23 years.” 20 24 25 26 27 28 7 This evidence included appellant's own statements to Smith that he was a gang member; Smith's testimony that appellant had engaged in a verbal altercation with a group of men wearing the color of a rival gang, and had pointed his gun at them and fired a shot in the air to chase them away; appellant's numerous tattoos indicating affiliation with the Norteno gang; and the presence in appellant's bedroom of gang graffiti and photographs of appellant with gang members. The prosecution also called a gang expert who testified that appellant had been “validated” by the police as a Norteno gang member in 1996, and described the nature, culture, and violent criminal behavior of the Norteno gang. 8 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 should have been granted, because the prosecution presented no evidence of the gang connection element; and (2) his conviction on the street gang firearm counts should be reversed because the jury was not instructed that it had to find the gang connection element in order to convict appellant on these counts. Respondent contends that, even if appellant were correct in his statutory analysis, the prosecution presented sufficient evidence of the gang connection element for the firearm charges to survive appellant's motion for acquittal. As to the gun possession at the time of the murder, respondent argues that the gang connection element was shown by the fact that the victim was wearing blue, the color associated with the principal rival of appellant's gang. As to the gun possession at the time of the car wash shooting, respondent posits that this crime was committed as part of appellant's gang participation because it was “a manifestation of appellant's violent tendencies,” which he “fostered specifically to benefit his gang, and its reputation for toughness.” We need not and do not determine whether respondent's factual conclusions regarding this issue are correct.9 Instead, we address and reject appellant's main argument, i.e., that the street gang firearm statutes incorporate a gang connection element. 12 People v. Schoppe-Rico, 140 Cal. App. 4th 1370, 1378-79 (2006). 13 As the court of appeal noted in the portion of the opinion quoted above, and 14 explained more extensively later in the opinion, Petitioner’s interpretation of state law is 15 incorrect. There is no “gang connection element” to the street gang firearms offenses. Id. 16 at 1383. Crucially, this holding as to state law is binding on this court in ruling on a 17 federal habeas petition. See Bradshaw v. Richey, 546 U.S. 74, 76 (2005). 18 Although the first of Petitioner’s issues involving this point is a contention that 19 there was no evidence to support the firearms charges, that contention is dependent not on 20 the state of the evidence but on his contention that there is a “gang connection element.” 21 22 As evidence that the color of the victim's clothing was the motive for the murder, respondent cites the opinion of the prosecution's gang expert. The expert's testimony about the color of the victim's clothing, however, was offered as one of a number of facts supporting the expert's opinion that appellant was still an active gang participant at the time of the murder. The expert was not asked to, and did not, render an opinion that the possession of the murder weapon, or the murder itself, for that matter, were committed in connection with appellant's gang participation. As for respondent's argument proposing a connection between appellant's gang participation and the car wash shooting, it arguably proves too much. If accepted, it would mean that every violent crime committed by a gang member, no matter how far removed from the perpetrator's gang activities, is ipso facto committed as part of the perpetrator's participation in a gang. 9 23 24 25 26 27 28 23 1 That is, he contends that there was no evidence that his carrying the firearm was 2 connected to gang activity, so his motion to acquit on those charges should have been 3 granted. But given that the predicate of this claim is wrong – that is, there is no “gang 4 connection” requirement – the federal habeas claim necessarily is without merit. And the 5 second of his claims involving this point, that the jury should have been instructed about 6 the “gang connection element,” is equally wrong. These claims are rejected. 7 F. 8 Petitioner contends that there was insufficient evidence of premeditation and 9 deliberation. This claim was presented on direct review. In rejecting it, the court of 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 13 14 15 16 Sufficiency of the Evidence appeal said: In addition to his other arguments challenging his murder conviction, appellant contends that the evidence of premeditation and deliberation is insufficient to support his conviction for first degree murder. In assessing appellant’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we are required to “ ‘review the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment below to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence—that is, evidence which is reasonable, credible, and of solid value—such that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ” (People v. Hawkins (1995) 10 Cal.4th 920, 955, italics added, overruled on other grounds by People v. Blakeley (2000) 23 Cal.4th 82, 89, and People v. Lasko (2000) 23 Cal.4th 101, 110; accord, Jackson v. Virginia (1979) 443 U.S. 307, 319.) 17 [Further discussion of California law omitted.] 18 19 20 21 22 Appellant’s sufficiency of the evidence argument stresses several facts which he contends militate against a finding of premeditation and deliberation. First, the weight of the evidence indicated that appellant was angry and agitated on the morning of the murder due to his earlier domestic dispute with Smith. Second, the shooting occurred in the presence of several eyewitnesses, which appellant argues undercuts the inference that the murder was deliberately planned. Finally, the only arguable evidence of motive offered by the prosecution was the fact that the victim was wearing the color associated with a rival of appellant’s gang. 23 24 25 26 27 28 These facts, however, are not so inconsistent with premeditation and deliberation as to require us to conclude that a reasonable jury could not have found appellant guilty of first-degree murder. On the other side of the evidentiary balance, the jury had the following additional facts to consider. During appellant’s altercation with Smith earlier in the morning on the day of the murder, appellant threatened Smith by saying, “Don’t make me get my gun.” When Smith still refused to come home with appellant, he responded by saying, “That’s it. I’m getting my gun. You did it now. I’m getting my gun.” The jury could reasonably have concluded that during the 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 13 14 interval of about half an hour between appellant’s utterance of these threats and his murder of Taylor, appellant formulated the intent of using his gun to commit a violent assault; went back to his house and collected it; proceeded to the bus stop with that purpose in mind; and then carried out his intent by firing several shots at close range at a victim selected on the spot. This fact pattern indicates planning activity, and thus is entirely consistent with a finding of premeditation and deliberation, even if the ultimate target of appellant’s murderous intent was not selected until the last minute. (See People v. Francisco (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1180, 1191-1192 [evidence that defendant gang member obtained gun in order to shoot someone, drove around looking for someone to shoot, and then fired several shots at close range at group of people wearing colors of rival gang, was sufficient to support finding of premeditation and deliberation].) Furthermore, appellant’s notebook, which was seized in a search of his home shortly after the murder, contained writings which the prosecution’s gang expert testified referred to killing members of the rival Sureno gang, whose color was blue—the color Taylor was wearing when he was killed. This evidence clearly bears on the factors of planning activity and motive, and although we did not find it particularly persuasive in establishing that appellant was in fact the shooter, it carries significantly more weight on the question whether, assuming appellant was the shooter, his crime was characterized by premeditation and deliberation. (See People v. Sanchez (2001) 26 Cal.4th 834, 849 [“ ‘A studied hatred and enmity, including a preplanned, purposeful resolve to shoot anyone in a certain neighborhood wearing a certain color, evidences the most cold-blooded, most calculated, most culpable, kind of premeditation and deliberation.’ [Citation.]” (Italics omitted)].) 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Finally, Melton testified that he and Taylor did not interact with appellant prior to the shooting, and there was no evidence that they did anything to provoke him. Rather, appellant pulled out his gun without warning; fired repeatedly, first at Melton and Taylor and then at Lancaster; and then simply walked away. The evidence that appellant fired multiple shots at several different people, without any apparent provocation, and then left the scene at a walking pace, also supports the jury’s finding that appellant acted with premeditation and deliberation, based on the manner of killing. (See People v. Francisco, supra, 22 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1191-1192; cf. People v. Hawkins, supra, 10 Cal.4th at pp. 956-957 [evidence that victim was killed “execution-style” by shots to the head from above supported conviction of premeditated murder, even where evidence of planning and motive was minimal or absent].) 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Given the state of the record, as outlined above, the applicable standard of review constrains us to reject appellant’s sufficiency of the evidence challenge to his first-degree murder conviction. Although the evidence of premeditation and deliberation in this case “was admittedly not overwhelming, . . . ‘we need not be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant premeditated the murder[]. The relevant inquiry on appeal is whether “ ‘any rational trier of fact’ ” could have been so persuaded.’ [Citations.]” (People v. Wharton (1991) 53 Cal.3d 522, 546.) Accordingly, we reject appellant’s contention that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction of first-degree murder. (Ex. 6 at 17-20.) 25 The Due Process Clause "protects the accused against conviction except upon 1 which he is charged." In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 364 (1970). A state prisoner who 4 alleges that the evidence in support of his state conviction cannot be fairly characterized 5 as sufficient to have led a rational trier of fact to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt 6 therefore states a constitutional claim, Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 321 (1979), 7 which, if proven, entitles him to federal habeas relief, id. at 324. The federal court 8 determines only whether, "after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the 9 prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime 10 beyond a reasonable doubt." Id. at 319. Only if no rational trier of fact could have found 11 For the Northern District of California proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with 3 United States District Court 2 proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, may the writ be granted. Id. at 324. When 12 considering a sufficiency of the evidence claim the Court must “view[] the evidence in 13 the light most favorable to the prosecution,” Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319, so must assume 14 that the jury believed the witnesses. Decisive for this issue is that California law, as determined by the court of appeal 15 16 and binding on this court, does not require that proof of the deliberation and 17 premeditation element of first degree murder be proof that the defendant premeditated 18 and deliberately committed the murder of any particular person, or of the person 19 ultimately killed. (Ex. 6 at 19.) See Bradshaw v. Richey, 546 U.S. at 76 (state appellate 20 court’s holding interpreting state law binding on subsequent federal habeas court). The 21 Jackson standard must be applied with reference to the applicable state law. Sarausad v. 22 Porter, 479 F.3d 671, 678-79 (9th Cir. 2007) (noting that state law controls what there 23 must be substantial evidence of). Because it is clear from the facts as set out by the court 24 of appeal that Petitioner lingered at the intersection – and indeed went there – with the 25 premeditated and deliberate intention of killing someone, there was sufficient evidence 26 for a rational jury to find that he was guilty of first degree murder beyond a reasonable 27 doubt. 28 This claim is without merit. 26 1 2 III. Appealability The federal rules governing habeas cases brought by state prisoners require a 3 district court that denies a habeas petition to grant or deny a certificate of appealability in 4 the ruling. See Rule 11(a), Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254 5 (effective December 1, 2009). Also, Petitioner has filed a motion for a certificate of 6 appealability, although at the time he filed it there was, of course, no final judgment. 7 A petitioner may not appeal a final order in a federal habeas corpus proceeding 8 without first obtaining a certificate of appealability (formerly known as a certificate of 9 probable cause to appeal). See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). A judge shall grant a certificate of appealability "only if the applicant has made a substantial showing 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The certificate must 12 indicate which issues satisfy this standard. See id. § 2253(c)(3). “Where a district court 13 has rejected the constitutional claims on the merits, the showing required to satisfy § 14 2253(c) is straightforward: the petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would 15 find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” 16 Slack v. McDaniel, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 1604 (2000). 17 This was not a close case. For the reasons set out above, jurists of reason would 18 not find the result debatable or wrong. A certificate of appealability will be denied. 19 Petitioner is advised that he may not appeal the denial of a COA, but he may ask the court 20 of appeals to issue a COA under Rule 22 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. 21 See Rule 11(a), Rules Governing § 2254 Cases. CONCLUSION 22 23 The petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DENIED. Petitioner’s motion for a 24 certificate of appealability (document number 34) is DENIED. A certificate of 25 appealability is DENIED. The Clerk shall close the file. 26 IT IS SO ORDERED. 27 DATED: November 15, 2010. JEFFREY S. WHITE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 28 G:\JSWALL\Pro-Se Prisoner\2007\Schoppe-Rico5416.RUL.wpd 27 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE 3 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 5 JOHN M. SCHOPPE-RICO, 6 7 8 9 Plaintiff, For the Northern District of California United States District Court 12 13 14 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE v. ROBERT A. HOREL et al, Defendant. 10 11 Case Number: CV07-05416 JSW / I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. That on November 15, 2010, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office. 15 16 18 John M. Schoppe-Rico V-11328 Pelican Bay State Prison P.O. Box 7500 Crescent City, CA 95532 19 Dated: November 15, 2010 17 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk By: Jennifer Ottolini, Deputy Clerk
]]>
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.
