Brian Thomas Cruz v. Gena Jones

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: December 3, 2024
• Docket: 2:24-cv-00410
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 WESTERN DIVISION 11 12 BRIAN THOMAS CRUZ, ) Case No. 2:24-cv-00410-FMO-JDE ) 13 Petitioner, ) ) ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS 14 v. ) AND RECOMMENDATION OF ) 15 WARDEN GENA JONES, ) UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE ) JUDGE 16 ) Respondent. ) 17 ) 18 19 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the records and files 20 herein, including the operative First Amended Petition (Dkt. 16, “Petition”), 21 Respondent’s Answer to the Petition (Dkt. 29) and supporting records, 22 Petitioner’s Traverse (Dkt. 31), the Report and Recommendation of the 23 magistrate judge dated October 28, 2024 (Dkt. 33, “Report”), and Petitioner’s 24 Objection to the Report (Dkt. 36). 25 The Report recommends the denial of the First Amended Petition and 26 the dismissal of this action with prejudice. (Dkt. 33.) Petitioner’s Objections 27 to the Report (Dkt. 36) do not warrant a change to the Magistrate Judge’s 28 1 findings or recommendations. 2 Petitioner objects that he is entitled to habeas relief for Ground One, in 3 which he claims he was incompetent to stand trial. (Dkt. 36 at 2-4.) The 4 California Court of Appeal’s rejection of this claim was not objectively 5 unreasonable. Experts repeatedly found Petitioner to be competent. (Dkt. 8-2 6 at 29-30.) Although Petitioner argues that he had no motive for the crimes and 7 that he was found to be incompetent at other times (Dkt. 36 at 3-4), this does 8 not render the state court’s decision objectively unreasonable. An absence of 9 motive does not undermine the competency determination, and “the presence 10 of expert opinions that [Petitioner] was, at times, incompetent, does not 11 change this result.” (Dkt. 8-2 at 30.) 12 13 Petitioner objects that he is entitled to habeas relief for Ground Two, in 14 which he claims the trial court erred in denying his three motions for mistrial. 15 (Dkt. 36 at 4-6.) The California Court of Appeal’s rejection of this claim was 16 not objectively unreasonable. The first two motions, based on Petitioner’s 17 alleged incompetence, were properly denied because Petitioner, despite being 18 found incompetent at times, ultimately was found competent. (Dkt. 8-2 at 34- 19 35.) The third motion, based on the trial judge’s alleged embroilment in the 20 case, was properly denied because the trial judge, in obtaining Petitioner’s jail 21 and medical records, “believed she was assisting the defense in obtaining 22 information that would be helpful to [Petitioner], and that the information 23 would expedite the process. After [defense] counsel made its objections 24 known, the trial judge did not review the materials.” (Dkt. 8-2 at 36.) 25 Petitioner objects that he is entitled to habeas relief for Ground Three, in 26 which he claims his trial counsel was ineffective. (Dkt. 36 at 6-7.) The 27 California Court of Appeal’s rejection of this claim was not objectively 28 1 unreasonable. Petitioner failed to show prejudice from trial counsel’s failure to 2 declare a doubt as to Petitioner’s competence because the alleged basis for the 3 doubt, the possibility that Petitioner would be found incompetent in a different 4 case, would not have been enough for Petitioner to be found incompetent in 5 this case. (Dkt. 8-2 at 38 (citing People v. Dudley, 81 Cal. App. 3d 866, 872 6 (1978).) Petitioner also failed to show prejudice from substitution of counsel 7 during the trial, because Petitioner “cannot show any lack of preparation or 8 continuity. [Substitute counsel] was given eight months to prepare[.]” (Dkt. 8- 9 2 at 39 (emphasis in original).) 10 Petitioner objects that he is entitled to habeas relief for Ground Four, in 11 which he claims the trial court’s comments showed judicial bias. (Dkt. 36 at 8- 12 9.) The trial court referred to Petitioner as “the consummate actor,” “a fox, 13 and “a con man,” and accused him of “prey[ing] upon the stupidity of the 14 prosecutors.” (Dkt. 33 at 29.) The California Court of Appeal’s rejection of 15 this claim was not objectively unreasonable. “The trial court’s comments . . . 16 reflect some understandable frustration at the unnecessary delays in the 17 proceedings. The statements did not indicate the trial court’s view, if any, on 18 [Petitioner’s] guilt. The trial court did not disparage [Petitioner’s] testimony in 19 either phase of the trial, nor the evidence presented by the defense concerning 20 the charges.” (Dkt. 8-2 at 41-42.) Judicial comments that reflect frustration 21 with “conduct aimed at further stalling the trial” do not prove judicial bias or 22 prejudice. Noli v. Commissioner, 860 F.2d 1521, 1528 (9th Cir. 1988). 23 24 Petitioner objects that he is entitled to habeas relief for Ground Five, in 25 which he claims the evidence was insufficient to support his burglary 26 convictions. (Dkt. 36 at 9-10.) The California Court of Appeal’s rejection of 27 this claim was not objectively unreasonable. The evidence permitted a 28 reasonable jury to infer that Petitioner, before entering the victims’ homes, had 1 the necessary specific intent to unlawfully deprive the victims of their property. 2 (Dkt. 8-2 at 46.) The evidence showed that he took their cars and other 3 belongings, and he demanded money, jewelry, and clothes. (Id.) Although 4 Petitioner argues that was suffering from a mental health episode (Dkt. 36 at 5 9), the Court must presume that the jury resolved all conflicts in the evidence 6 in a manner that supports the verdict. 7 Finally, Petitioner objects that he is entitled to an evidentiary hearing. 8 (Dkt. 36 at 10.) An evidentiary hearing is not warranted where, as here, “the 9 state-court record ‘precludes habeas relief’ under the limitations of § 254(d)[.]” 10 Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170, 183 (2011) (quoting Schriro v. Landrigan, 550 11 U.S. 465, 474 (2007)). Thus, Petitioner’s request for an evidentiary hearing is 12 denied. 13 14 Having engaged in a de novo review of those portions of the Report to 15 which objections have been made, the Court concurs with and accepts the 16 findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. 17 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that 18 (1) Petitioner’s request for an evidentiary hearing (Dkt. 31 at 1) is denied; and 19 (2) Judgment be entered denying the operative Petition and dismissing this 20 action with prejudice. 21 22 23 Dated: December 3, 2024 __________/s/_____________________ FERNANDO M. OLGUIN 24 United States District Judge 25 26 27 28