1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 8 9 ANTHONY SHRONE PERSON, No. 23-cv-5434-BJR 10 Petitioner, 11 v. ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND 12 MELISSA ANDREWJESKI, DENYING PETITION Respondent. 13 14 I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 15 16 This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (R&R) of U.S. 17 Magistrate Judge Theresa L. Fricke, recommending denial of the 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition of 18 Anthony Person (“Petitioner”), denial of Petitioner’s request for an evidentiary hearing, and denial 19 of a Certificate of Appealability. Petitioner is currently incarcerated at Coyote Ridge Corrections 20 Center in Connell, Washington, having been convicted of 18 counts of sex offenses against his 21 daughters, O.P. and M.P., and against A.A., the daughter of his former spouse. The Court, having 22 23 reviewed the Petition, the Response of Respondent Melissa Andrewjeski, the R&R, and 24 Petitioner’s Objections thereto, finds and rules as follows. 25 26 ORDER ADOPTING R&R AND DENYING PETITION - 1 1 The 26-page R&R contains a thorough review of the facts and procedural history of this 2 case, which the Court will not repeat here. See R&R at 2-8. In sum, in 2020 Petitioner was charged 3 with multiple counts of sexual assault, child molestation, and incest involving his minor children. 4 Petitioner chose to represent himself at trial and was appointed standby counsel, and a jury 5 ultimately found Petitioner guilty on all counts. Petitioner filed an appeal, and his conviction was 6 affirmed. He also filed in state court two personal restraint petitions, both of which were denied, 7 which raised the claims made herein. Respondent acknowledges that Petitioner has exhausted his 8 9 state court remedies as to the claims raised herein. 10 II. DISCUSSION 11 A. Standard of Review Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 12 As the R&R notes, a habeas corpus petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 “shall not be 13 granted with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings 14 unless the adjudication of the claim— (1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved 15 16 an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme 17 Court of the United States; or (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable 18 determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.” 28 19 U.S.C. § 2254(d). Federal courts review a habeas petition under a “highly deferential standard,” 20 and the state court decision must be “more than incorrect or erroneous”; it must be an “objectively 21 unreasonable” application of “clearly established law.” Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 75 22 (2003). In other words, “ a state prisoner must show that the state court’s ruling on the claim being 23 24 presented was so lacking in justification that there was an error well understood and comprehended 25 26
ORDER ADOPTING R&R AND DENYING PETITION - 2 1 in existing law beyond any possibility for fair-minded disagreement.” Harrington v. Richter, 562 2 U.S. 86, 103 (2011). 3 In reviewing the R&R, this Court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of 4 the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 5 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). However, a district court is free to adopt those portions of a magistrate 6 judge’s report to which no specific objection is made, provided they are not clearly erroneous. 7 Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). 8 9 B. Petitioner’s Claims 10 The R&R analyzes each of Petitioner’s claims, which the Petition presents as “(1) ‘Subject 11 Matter’ and ‘Personal Jurisdiction’ U.S. Constitutional infringement—Due Process, Equal 12 Protection, Right to Remain Silent; (2) Ineffective Assistance of Counsel and Prosecutor 13 Misconduct; (3) Fraud, Invalid Judgment/ Sentence, Misconduct of the State’s Witnesses, Law 14 Enforcement Expungement of a favorable evidence toward defendant; and (4) Violation of Police 15 16 Investigation/Petitioner resided outside the State of Washington during charging information — 17 Violation of ‘Due Process/Equal Protection.’” R&R at 2, citing Dkt. 19, Petition for Habeas 18 Corpus. 19 The R&R addresses each of the grounds Petitioner raised separately, finding as to each that 20 Petitioner had failed to meet his significant burden of demonstrating the state courts’ rejection of 21 his claims was based on either an “unreasonable application of clearly established Federal law,” 22 or on “an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254. As 23 24 to Ground (1), Petitioner’s challenge to jurisdiction of the State of Washington over his criminal 25 proceedings, the R&R concluded that “[t]his claim is frivolous. Mr. Person was charged with 26
ORDER ADOPTING R&R AND DENYING PETITION - 3 1 criminal offences that all occurred within Washington State.” R&R at 11 (citing Judgment and 2 Sentence, Warrant of Commitment, Mason County Case No. 20-1-00147-23 (August 17, 2021)). 3 The Petitioner’s Objections fail to address, let alone negate, this reasonable conclusion, which the 4 Court therefore adopts. 5 The R&R also concludes that Ground (2)—Ineffective Assistance of Counsel—was 6 frivolous, as Petitioner “waived his right to counsel and decided to represent himself at trial.” R&R 7 at 11, 12 (citing Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 835, n. 46 (1975) (defendant who waives the 8 9 right to counsel cannot then claim ineffective assistance of counsel)). Again, the Objections do not 10 provide the Court with any specific basis for rejecting this conclusion, which the Court therefore 11 adopts. 12 The R&R also rejects claims of prosecutorial misconduct, which underlie Grounds (2), 13 (3), and (4). The R&R thoroughly, individually, and accurately analyzes the purported Brady 14 violation; the claimed violation of Petitioner’s right to remain silent; and Petitioner’s claim that he 15 16 was convicted despite an insufficiency of evidence. R&R at 13-24. The R&R concludes as to each 17 claim that the state court had “reasonably applied clearly established federal law.” R&R at 13. 18 Petitioner’s Objections offer little more than generalized averments that the R&R is “erroneous.” 19 Petitioner attempts to relitigate factual and legal issues that were already raised in state criminal 20 proceedings, and rejected by the jury, and also rejected on both direct appeal and by state courts 21 in Petitioner’s personal restraint petition proceedings. He does not set forth any specific legal or 22 factual material that establishes that the state courts’ rejections of his federal claims were 23 24 unreasonable, offering little more than repeated claims—made multiple times in previous 25 proceedings—that he is innocent and that witnesses were lying, without any specific information 26
ORDER ADOPTING R&R AND DENYING PETITION - 4 1 || or evidence to support these claims.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 8 9 ANTHONY SHRONE PERSON, No. 23-cv-5434-BJR 10 Petitioner, 11 v. ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND 12 MELISSA ANDREWJESKI, DENYING PETITION Respondent. 13 14 I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 15 16 This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (R&R) of U.S. 17 Magistrate Judge Theresa L. Fricke, recommending denial of the 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition of 18 Anthony Person (“Petitioner”), denial of Petitioner’s request for an evidentiary hearing, and denial 19 of a Certificate of Appealability. Petitioner is currently incarcerated at Coyote Ridge Corrections 20 Center in Connell, Washington, having been convicted of 18 counts of sex offenses against his 21 daughters, O.P. and M.P., and against A.A., the daughter of his former spouse. The Court, having 22 23 reviewed the Petition, the Response of Respondent Melissa Andrewjeski, the R&R, and 24 Petitioner’s Objections thereto, finds and rules as follows. 25 26 ORDER ADOPTING R&R AND DENYING PETITION - 1 1 The 26-page R&R contains a thorough review of the facts and procedural history of this 2 case, which the Court will not repeat here. See R&R at 2-8. In sum, in 2020 Petitioner was charged 3 with multiple counts of sexual assault, child molestation, and incest involving his minor children. 4 Petitioner chose to represent himself at trial and was appointed standby counsel, and a jury 5 ultimately found Petitioner guilty on all counts. Petitioner filed an appeal, and his conviction was 6 affirmed. He also filed in state court two personal restraint petitions, both of which were denied, 7 which raised the claims made herein. Respondent acknowledges that Petitioner has exhausted his 8 9 state court remedies as to the claims raised herein. 10 II. DISCUSSION 11 A. Standard of Review Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 12 As the R&R notes, a habeas corpus petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 “shall not be 13 granted with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings 14 unless the adjudication of the claim— (1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved 15 16 an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme 17 Court of the United States; or (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable 18 determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.” 28 19 U.S.C. § 2254(d). Federal courts review a habeas petition under a “highly deferential standard,” 20 and the state court decision must be “more than incorrect or erroneous”; it must be an “objectively 21 unreasonable” application of “clearly established law.” Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 75 22 (2003). In other words, “ a state prisoner must show that the state court’s ruling on the claim being 23 24 presented was so lacking in justification that there was an error well understood and comprehended 25 26
ORDER ADOPTING R&R AND DENYING PETITION - 2 1 in existing law beyond any possibility for fair-minded disagreement.” Harrington v. Richter, 562 2 U.S. 86, 103 (2011). 3 In reviewing the R&R, this Court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of 4 the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 5 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). However, a district court is free to adopt those portions of a magistrate 6 judge’s report to which no specific objection is made, provided they are not clearly erroneous. 7 Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). 8 9 B. Petitioner’s Claims 10 The R&R analyzes each of Petitioner’s claims, which the Petition presents as “(1) ‘Subject 11 Matter’ and ‘Personal Jurisdiction’ U.S. Constitutional infringement—Due Process, Equal 12 Protection, Right to Remain Silent; (2) Ineffective Assistance of Counsel and Prosecutor 13 Misconduct; (3) Fraud, Invalid Judgment/ Sentence, Misconduct of the State’s Witnesses, Law 14 Enforcement Expungement of a favorable evidence toward defendant; and (4) Violation of Police 15 16 Investigation/Petitioner resided outside the State of Washington during charging information — 17 Violation of ‘Due Process/Equal Protection.’” R&R at 2, citing Dkt. 19, Petition for Habeas 18 Corpus. 19 The R&R addresses each of the grounds Petitioner raised separately, finding as to each that 20 Petitioner had failed to meet his significant burden of demonstrating the state courts’ rejection of 21 his claims was based on either an “unreasonable application of clearly established Federal law,” 22 or on “an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254. As 23 24 to Ground (1), Petitioner’s challenge to jurisdiction of the State of Washington over his criminal 25 proceedings, the R&R concluded that “[t]his claim is frivolous. Mr. Person was charged with 26
ORDER ADOPTING R&R AND DENYING PETITION - 3 1 criminal offences that all occurred within Washington State.” R&R at 11 (citing Judgment and 2 Sentence, Warrant of Commitment, Mason County Case No. 20-1-00147-23 (August 17, 2021)). 3 The Petitioner’s Objections fail to address, let alone negate, this reasonable conclusion, which the 4 Court therefore adopts. 5 The R&R also concludes that Ground (2)—Ineffective Assistance of Counsel—was 6 frivolous, as Petitioner “waived his right to counsel and decided to represent himself at trial.” R&R 7 at 11, 12 (citing Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 835, n. 46 (1975) (defendant who waives the 8 9 right to counsel cannot then claim ineffective assistance of counsel)). Again, the Objections do not 10 provide the Court with any specific basis for rejecting this conclusion, which the Court therefore 11 adopts. 12 The R&R also rejects claims of prosecutorial misconduct, which underlie Grounds (2), 13 (3), and (4). The R&R thoroughly, individually, and accurately analyzes the purported Brady 14 violation; the claimed violation of Petitioner’s right to remain silent; and Petitioner’s claim that he 15 16 was convicted despite an insufficiency of evidence. R&R at 13-24. The R&R concludes as to each 17 claim that the state court had “reasonably applied clearly established federal law.” R&R at 13. 18 Petitioner’s Objections offer little more than generalized averments that the R&R is “erroneous.” 19 Petitioner attempts to relitigate factual and legal issues that were already raised in state criminal 20 proceedings, and rejected by the jury, and also rejected on both direct appeal and by state courts 21 in Petitioner’s personal restraint petition proceedings. He does not set forth any specific legal or 22 factual material that establishes that the state courts’ rejections of his federal claims were 23 24 unreasonable, offering little more than repeated claims—made multiple times in previous 25 proceedings—that he is innocent and that witnesses were lying, without any specific information 26
ORDER ADOPTING R&R AND DENYING PETITION - 4 1 || or evidence to support these claims. Accordingly, the Court agrees with and adopts the R&R’s 2 || conclusions as to these claims. 3 Finally, the Court agrees with the R&R that Petitioner is not entitled to an evidentiary 4 hearing. Whether to hold an evidentiary hearing is committed to the Court’s discretion, and a ° hearing is not required if a petitioner’s allegations would not entitle him to relief under §2254(d). Schriro v. Landrigan, 550 U.S. 465, 473 (2007). Petitioner’s purported disputes of fact are little
g || more than re-hashed requests for credibility determinations that have already been resolved by a 9 || jury, and it is not the province of this Court to second-guess that finder of fact. 10 I. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Court, having reviewed the Report and Recommendation, 2 the petition for writ of federal habeas corpus relief and the remaining record, hereby finds and ORDERS: 14 15 1. the Report and Recommendation is approved and adopted; 16 2. petitioner’s federal habeas corpus petition is DISMISSED with prejudice; 17 3. the Court DENIES a certificate of appealability; and 18 4. the Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to petitioner, to Magistrate Judge 19 Theresa L. Fricke and to any other party that has appeared in this action. 20 SO ORDERED. Dated: March 11, 2024. 21 & Avera eu, 24 U.S. District Court Judge 25 26 ORDER ADOPTING R&R AND DENYING PETITION - 5