United States District Court, S.D. California
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [DOC. NO.
19] AND DENYING PETITION
Cathy Ann Bencivengo United States District Judge
Tyler Pennings (“Petitioner”), is a state
prisoner proceeding pro se with a Petition for Writ
of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2254. [Doc. No. 1.] This matter was referred to
United States Magistrate Judge Bernard G. Skomal pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Magistrate Judge Skomal issued
a Report and Recommendation (“Report”)
recommending the Court deny the petition. [Doc. No. 19.]
Petitioner filed objections to the Report. [Doc. No. 20.]
de novo review of Petitioner's claims, the Court
finds the Report to be thorough, complete, and an accurate
analysis of the legal issues presented in the petition. For
the reasons explained below, the Court: (1) adopts the Report
in full; (2) rejects Petitioner's objections; (3) denies
the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus; and (4) denies a
certificate of appealability.
Report contains an accurate recital of the facts as
determined by the California Court of Appeal, and the Court
fully adopts the Report's statement of facts. As Judge
Skomal correctly noted, the Court presumes state court
findings of fact to be correct.
State Procedural Background
Report contains a complete and accurate summary of the state
court proceedings, and the Court fully adopts the
Report's statement of state procedural background.
Federal Procedural Background
August 17, 2015, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus challenging his San Diego County Superior Court
conviction. [Doc. No. 1.] On December 9, 2015, Respondent
filed an Answer to the Petition, and lodged portions of the
state court record. [Doc. Nos. 8 and 9.] On April 13, 2016,
Petitioner filed a Traverse. [Doc. No. 16.]
February 2, 2017, Magistrate Judge Bernard G. Skomal issued a
Report recommending that the petition be denied. [Doc. No.
19.] On February 27, 2017, Petitioner filed an Objection to
the Report. [Doc. No. 20.] In his objection, Petitioner
argues that the magistrate judge erred in finding that the
state court did not make an unreasonable application of
clearly established federal law or an unreasonable
determination of the facts in light of the evidence.
Petitioner also requests an evidentiary hearing. Because
Petitioner has objected to the Report in its entirety, the
Court reviews the Report de novo. 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(C); Holder v. Holder, 392 F.3d 1009, 1022
(9th Cir. 2004).
Report sets forth the correct standard of review for a
petition for writ of habeas corpus. Under 28 U.S.C. §
(d) An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a
person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court
shall not be granted with respect to any claim that was
adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings unless
the adjudication of the claim-(1) resulted in a decision that
was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of,