1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSEPH MICHAEL DENNER, Case No. 2:21-cv-00309-TLN-JDP 12 Petitioner, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT THE PETITION FOR HABEAS 13 v. CORPUS BE DENIED 14 PATRICK EATON, ECF No. 1 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner Joseph Michael Denner, a state prisoner proceeding without counsel, seeks a 18 writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. ECF No. 1. He argues that his rights were 19 violated when the trial court failed to instruct the jury that duress was a defense to aiding and 20 abetting murder. I recommend denying the petition. 21 Background 22 Petitioner was charged with first degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)) with a 23 kidnapping special circumstance. ECF No. 10-1 at 18-19. He pled not guilty and proceeded to 24 jury trial in San Joaquin Superior Court. ECF No. 10-3 at 6. He was acquitted of first-degree 25 murder and the kidnapping special circumstance was found to be untrue, ECF No. 10-3 at 151, 26 but the jury found him guilty of the lesser included offense of second degree murder (Pen. Code, 27 § 189 (b)), and he was sentenced to 15 years to life. ECF No. 10-3 at 151 and ECF No. 10-4 at 28 68. 1 Petitioner raises three habeas claims, all related to the trial court’s failure to instruct that 2 duress was a defense to aiding and abetting murder. First, he argues that the failure to instruct 3 deprived him of his right to present a defense. Second, he argues that the failure to instruct 4 violated his due process rights. Third, he argues that his trial attorney’s failure to request a jury 5 instruction deprived him of effective assistance of counsel. The California Court of Appeal, in a 6 reasoned opinion, rejected petitioner’s view that duress was a defense to second degree murder. 7 See ECF 10-11 at 8-10. The California Supreme Court summarily denied the subsequent petition 8 for review. ECF No. 10-13. 9 Legal Standard 10 A federal court may grant habeas relief when a petitioner shows that his custody violates 11 federal law. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241(a), (c)(3), 2254(a); Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 374-75 12 (2000). Section 2254 of Title 28, as amended by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty 13 Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), governs a state prisoner’s habeas petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254; 14 Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 97 (2011). To decide a § 2254 petition, a federal court 15 examines the decision of the last state court that issued a reasoned opinion on petitioner’s habeas 16 claims. See Wilson v. Sellers, 138 S. Ct. 1188, 1192 (2018). 17 When a state court has adjudicated a petitioner’s claims on the merits, a federal court 18 reviews the state court’s decision under the deferential standard of § 2254(d). Section 2254(d) 19 precludes a federal court from granting habeas relief unless a state court’s decision is (1) contrary 20 to clearly established federal law, (2) a result of an unreasonable application of such law, or 21 (3) based on an unreasonable determination of facts. See § 2254(d); Murray v. Schriro, 882 F.3d 22 778, 801 (9th Cir. 2018). A state court’s decision is contrary to clearly established federal law if 23 it reaches a conclusion “opposite to” a holding of the United States Supreme Court or a 24 conclusion that differs from the Supreme Court’s precedent on “materially indistinguishable 25 facts.” Soto v. Ryan, 760 F.3d 947, 957 (9th Cir. 2014) (citation omitted). The state court’s 26 decision unreasonably applies clearly established federal law when the decision has “no 27 reasonable basis.” Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170, 188 (2011). An unreasonable 28 determination of facts occurs when a federal court is “convinced that an appellate panel, applying 1 the normal standards of appellate review, could not reasonably conclude that the finding is 2 supported by the record.” Loher v. Thomas, 825 F.3d 1103, 1112 (9th Cir. 2016). A federal 3 habeas court has an obligation to consider arguments or theories that “could have supported a 4 state court’s decision.” See Sexton v. Beaudreaux, 138 S. Ct. 2555, 2557 (2018) (quoting Richter, 5 562 U.S. at 102). One rule applies to all state prisoners’ petitions adjudicated on the merits: the 6 petitioner must show that the state court’s decision is “so lacking in justification that there was an 7 error well understood and comprehended in existing law beyond any possibility for fairminded 8 disagreement.” Richter, 562 U.S. at 103. 9 Even when a state court does not explicitly address a petitioner’s claims on the merits, a 10 § 2254 petitioner must satisfy a demanding standard to obtain habeas relief. When a state court 11 gives no reason for denying a petitioner’s habeas claim, a rebuttable presumption arises that the 12 state court adjudicated the claim on the merits under § 2254(d). See Richter, 562 U.S. at 99. And 13 a federal habeas court’s obligation to consider arguments or theories that could support a state 14 court’s decision extends to state-court decisions that offer no reasoning at all. See Sexton, 138 S. 15 Ct. at 2557. 16 If obtaining habeas relief under § 2254 is difficult, “that is because it was meant to be.” 17 Richter, 562 U.S. at 102. As the Supreme Court has put it, federal habeas review “disturbs the 18 State’s significant interest in repose for concluded litigation, denies society the right to punish 19 some admitted offenders, and intrudes on state sovereignty to a degree matched by few exercises 20 of federal judicial authority.” Id. at 103 (citation omitted). Our habeas review authority serves as 21 a “guard against extreme malfunctions in the state criminal justice systems, not a substitute for 22 ordinary error correction through appeal.” Id. at 102-03 (emphasis added). 23 Analysis 24 The only pertinent question is whether petitioner’s rights were violated when the trial 25 court declined to instruct that duress was a defense to aiding and abetting murder. If the answer is 26 no, then each of his claims must be denied. A federal habeas petition can succeed only if the 27 petitioner has been denied some federal right; federal habeas relief will not issue to resolve issues 28 of state law. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68 (citing Lewis v. 1 Jeffers, 497 U.S. 764, 780 (1990)). Whether duress is an available defense to aiding and abetting 2 murder under California law implicates no federal question; it is a question of state law that the 3 California Court of Appeal decided unambiguously. See ECF No. 10-11 at 7-8.1 The Supreme 4 Court has repeatedly held that a state court’s interpretation of state law, including one announced 5 on direct appeal of the challenged conviction, binds a federal habeas court. Bradshaw v. Richey, 6 546 U.S. 74, 76 (2005) (citing Estelle, 502 U.S. at 67-68 and Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U.S. 684, 7 691 (1975)). Each of petitioner’s claims must, therefore, be denied.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSEPH MICHAEL DENNER, Case No. 2:21-cv-00309-TLN-JDP 12 Petitioner, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT THE PETITION FOR HABEAS 13 v. CORPUS BE DENIED 14 PATRICK EATON, ECF No. 1 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner Joseph Michael Denner, a state prisoner proceeding without counsel, seeks a 18 writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. ECF No. 1. He argues that his rights were 19 violated when the trial court failed to instruct the jury that duress was a defense to aiding and 20 abetting murder. I recommend denying the petition. 21 Background 22 Petitioner was charged with first degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)) with a 23 kidnapping special circumstance. ECF No. 10-1 at 18-19. He pled not guilty and proceeded to 24 jury trial in San Joaquin Superior Court. ECF No. 10-3 at 6. He was acquitted of first-degree 25 murder and the kidnapping special circumstance was found to be untrue, ECF No. 10-3 at 151, 26 but the jury found him guilty of the lesser included offense of second degree murder (Pen. Code, 27 § 189 (b)), and he was sentenced to 15 years to life. ECF No. 10-3 at 151 and ECF No. 10-4 at 28 68. 1 Petitioner raises three habeas claims, all related to the trial court’s failure to instruct that 2 duress was a defense to aiding and abetting murder. First, he argues that the failure to instruct 3 deprived him of his right to present a defense. Second, he argues that the failure to instruct 4 violated his due process rights. Third, he argues that his trial attorney’s failure to request a jury 5 instruction deprived him of effective assistance of counsel. The California Court of Appeal, in a 6 reasoned opinion, rejected petitioner’s view that duress was a defense to second degree murder. 7 See ECF 10-11 at 8-10. The California Supreme Court summarily denied the subsequent petition 8 for review. ECF No. 10-13. 9 Legal Standard 10 A federal court may grant habeas relief when a petitioner shows that his custody violates 11 federal law. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241(a), (c)(3), 2254(a); Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 374-75 12 (2000). Section 2254 of Title 28, as amended by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty 13 Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), governs a state prisoner’s habeas petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254; 14 Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 97 (2011). To decide a § 2254 petition, a federal court 15 examines the decision of the last state court that issued a reasoned opinion on petitioner’s habeas 16 claims. See Wilson v. Sellers, 138 S. Ct. 1188, 1192 (2018). 17 When a state court has adjudicated a petitioner’s claims on the merits, a federal court 18 reviews the state court’s decision under the deferential standard of § 2254(d). Section 2254(d) 19 precludes a federal court from granting habeas relief unless a state court’s decision is (1) contrary 20 to clearly established federal law, (2) a result of an unreasonable application of such law, or 21 (3) based on an unreasonable determination of facts. See § 2254(d); Murray v. Schriro, 882 F.3d 22 778, 801 (9th Cir. 2018). A state court’s decision is contrary to clearly established federal law if 23 it reaches a conclusion “opposite to” a holding of the United States Supreme Court or a 24 conclusion that differs from the Supreme Court’s precedent on “materially indistinguishable 25 facts.” Soto v. Ryan, 760 F.3d 947, 957 (9th Cir. 2014) (citation omitted). The state court’s 26 decision unreasonably applies clearly established federal law when the decision has “no 27 reasonable basis.” Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170, 188 (2011). An unreasonable 28 determination of facts occurs when a federal court is “convinced that an appellate panel, applying 1 the normal standards of appellate review, could not reasonably conclude that the finding is 2 supported by the record.” Loher v. Thomas, 825 F.3d 1103, 1112 (9th Cir. 2016). A federal 3 habeas court has an obligation to consider arguments or theories that “could have supported a 4 state court’s decision.” See Sexton v. Beaudreaux, 138 S. Ct. 2555, 2557 (2018) (quoting Richter, 5 562 U.S. at 102). One rule applies to all state prisoners’ petitions adjudicated on the merits: the 6 petitioner must show that the state court’s decision is “so lacking in justification that there was an 7 error well understood and comprehended in existing law beyond any possibility for fairminded 8 disagreement.” Richter, 562 U.S. at 103. 9 Even when a state court does not explicitly address a petitioner’s claims on the merits, a 10 § 2254 petitioner must satisfy a demanding standard to obtain habeas relief. When a state court 11 gives no reason for denying a petitioner’s habeas claim, a rebuttable presumption arises that the 12 state court adjudicated the claim on the merits under § 2254(d). See Richter, 562 U.S. at 99. And 13 a federal habeas court’s obligation to consider arguments or theories that could support a state 14 court’s decision extends to state-court decisions that offer no reasoning at all. See Sexton, 138 S. 15 Ct. at 2557. 16 If obtaining habeas relief under § 2254 is difficult, “that is because it was meant to be.” 17 Richter, 562 U.S. at 102. As the Supreme Court has put it, federal habeas review “disturbs the 18 State’s significant interest in repose for concluded litigation, denies society the right to punish 19 some admitted offenders, and intrudes on state sovereignty to a degree matched by few exercises 20 of federal judicial authority.” Id. at 103 (citation omitted). Our habeas review authority serves as 21 a “guard against extreme malfunctions in the state criminal justice systems, not a substitute for 22 ordinary error correction through appeal.” Id. at 102-03 (emphasis added). 23 Analysis 24 The only pertinent question is whether petitioner’s rights were violated when the trial 25 court declined to instruct that duress was a defense to aiding and abetting murder. If the answer is 26 no, then each of his claims must be denied. A federal habeas petition can succeed only if the 27 petitioner has been denied some federal right; federal habeas relief will not issue to resolve issues 28 of state law. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68 (citing Lewis v. 1 Jeffers, 497 U.S. 764, 780 (1990)). Whether duress is an available defense to aiding and abetting 2 murder under California law implicates no federal question; it is a question of state law that the 3 California Court of Appeal decided unambiguously. See ECF No. 10-11 at 7-8.1 The Supreme 4 Court has repeatedly held that a state court’s interpretation of state law, including one announced 5 on direct appeal of the challenged conviction, binds a federal habeas court. Bradshaw v. Richey, 6 546 U.S. 74, 76 (2005) (citing Estelle, 502 U.S. at 67-68 and Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U.S. 684, 7 691 (1975)). Each of petitioner’s claims must, therefore, be denied. 8 Certificate of Appealability 9 A petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute right to appeal a district 10 court’s denial of a petition; he may appeal only in limited circumstances. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253; 11 Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003). Rule 11 Governing Section 2254 Cases 12 requires a district court to issue or deny a certificate of appealability when entering a final order 13 adverse to a petitioner. See also Ninth Circuit Rule 22-1(a); United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 14 1268, 1270 (9th Cir. 1997). A certificate of appealability will not issue unless a petitioner makes 15 “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). This 16 standard requires the petitioner to show that “jurists of reason could disagree with the district 17 court’s resolution of his constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented 18 are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 327; accord 19 Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Here, petitioner has not made a substantial 20 showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Thus, I recommend that the court decline to issue 21 a certificate of appealability. 22 Findings and Recommendations 23 The court should deny the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, ECF No. 1, and decline to 24 issue a certificate of appealability. These findings and recommendations are submitted to the 25 U.S. District Court judge presiding over this case under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of 26 27 1 Petitioner may not convert this state claim into a federal one merely by alleging that it 28 was a violation of his due process rights. Langford v. Day, 110 F.3d 1380, 1389 (9th Cir. 1997). 1 | the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. 2 | Within thirty days of the service of the findings and recommendations, the parties may file 3 | written objections to the findings and recommendations with the court and serve a copy on all 4 | parties. That document must be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 5 | Recommendations.” The district judge will then review the findings and recommendations under 6 | 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). 7 g IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: _ August 16, 2021 Q_——_. 10 JEREMY D. PETERSON i UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28