United States District Court, E.D. California
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF
PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
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
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 186–87). On June 5, 2013,
Petitioner was sentenced to an indeterminate imprisonment
term of twenty-five years to life. (CT 204).
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 8, 9). Petitioner did not
file any state habeas petitions. (ECF No. 1 at
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).
Standard of Review
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).
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
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); ...