King v. Duffy

          FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

         Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Respondent declined magistrate judge jurisdiction and this matter was therefore referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

         I.

         BACKGROUND

         On April 16, 2013, Petitioner was convicted after a jury trial in the Fresno County Superior Court of assault with a deadly weapon (count 1) and inflicting corporal injury against a cohabitant (count 2). The jury found true the allegation that Petitioner personally used a dangerous weapon in the commission of count 2. (CT^[1] 186–87). On June 5, 2013, Petitioner was sentenced to an indeterminate imprisonment term of twenty-five years to life. (CT 204).

         On December 29, 2014, the California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, affirmed the judgment. People v. King, No. F067424, 2014 WL 7402325, at *2 (Cal.Ct.App. Dec. 29, 2014). Thereafter, Petitioner filed a petition for review in the California Supreme Court, which denied the petition on March 11, 2015. (LDs^[2] 8, 9). Petitioner did not file any state habeas petitions. (ECF No. 1 at 4).^[3]

         On November 9, 2015, Petitioner filed the instant federal petition for writ of habeas corpus. (ECF No. 1). On February 4, 2016, Respondent filed an answer. (ECF No. 14). On February 22, 2016, Petitioner filed a traverse. (ECF No. 16).

         II.

         DISCUSSION

         A. Standard of Review

         Relief by way of a petition for writ of habeas corpus extends to a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a state court if the custody is in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2254(a); 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3); Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 375 (2000). Petitioner asserts that he suffered violations of his rights as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. The challenged convictions arise out of Fresno County Superior Court, which is located within the Eastern District of California. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d).

         On April 24, 1996, Congress enacted the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), which applies to all petitions for writ of habeas corpus filed after its enactment. Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320 (1997); Jeffries v. Wood, 114 F.3d 1484, 1499 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc). The instant petition was filed after the enactment of the AEDPA and is therefore governed by its provisions.

         Under the AEDPA, relitigation of any claim adjudicated on the merits in state court is barred unless a petitioner can show that the state court's adjudication of his claim:

(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.

28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 97–98 (2011); Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 70–71 (2003); ...