Ali v. Grounds
Decision Date | 22 February 2017 |
Docket Number | Case No. 14–cv–00898–BAS–WVG |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of California |
Parties | Ahmed ALI, Petitioner, v. R.T.C. GROUNDS, Warden, et al., Respondents. |
Kurt David Hermansen, Law Offices of Kurt D. Hermansen, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner.
Attorney General, Vincent Paul LaPietra, State of California Office of the Attorney General, San Diego, CA, for Respondents.
(1) OVERRULING PETITIONER'S OBJECTIONS;
Petitioner Ahmed Ali brings this First Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his July 2010 conviction in San Diego County Superior Court. The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo, who issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that Ali's petition be denied. Ali filed written objections. For the reasons set forth below, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation, and denies Ali's habeas petition.
The California Court of Appeal found the facts underlying Ali's conviction to be as follows:1
to his chest. Although the College Avenue apartment complex was not in any particular gang's territory, it was a common place for members of the O'Farrell Park or Skyline Piru gangs.
On August 7, 2008, the police received information about both shootings when a member of the Lincoln Park gang, Jesse Freeman, spoke to police after being arrested on an unrelated offense. Freeman told police that a fellow Lincoln Park gang member, Ali, claimed to have committed both of the July 22, 2008 shootings along with someone named "L" or "Lex." Freeman also gave police information about other crimes, including bank robberies, committed by different Lincoln Park gang members. Freeman made similar disclosures to police in subsequent interviews.
After the disclosure from Freeman, police examined the ballistics evidence from the two July 22, 2008 shootings and discovered that the same firearm was used in both incidents. Police next searched Ali's apartment and found a shell casing that was shown through forensic analysis to have been discharged from a gun that was fired at both of the July 22, 2008 shooting scenes.
to McElwee and the shots fired at the three victims in the car at the Harbor View apartments ( §§ 187, subd. (a), 664 ); two counts of shooting at an inhabited structure or vehicle (§ 246); one count of being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm (former § 12021, subd. (a)(1)); and one count of unlawfully possessing a firearm (former § 12316, subd. (b)(1)). The information also alleged firearm and criminal street gang enhancements (§§ 12022.53, subds. (c), (d), (e)(1), 186.22, subd. (b)(1)).
Because Freeman was no longer alive at the time of trial, his preliminary hearing testimony was read into the record at trial. The jury also heard recordings of Freeman's interview with police.
Among the other evidence against Ali at trial was the testimony of two eye witnesses. First, one of the men who came under fire at the College Avenue apartments on July 22, 2008, testified that he picked out Ali from a photographic lineup in February 2009 as one of the shooters, stating that he was 60 to 70 percent certain at the time of the identification. Second, a teenage boy, James Gomez, who saw the shooters at the College Avenue apartments before they opened fire, identified Ali as one of the shooters.
Ali presented testimony from friends and family members, who said they were with Ali at his apartment at the time of the shootings. Defense counsel argued that instead of Ali committing the shootings, Freeman or some other Lincoln Park gang member could have committed them and could have framed Ali, or the shootings could have been committed by someone associated with a different gang.
The jury convicted Ali on all counts, and the trial court sentenced him to prison for an indeterminate prison term of 135 years to life, plus a determinate term of 60 years.
People v. Ali , D058357, 2013 WL 452901, at *1–3 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 7, 2013) (unpublished).
Ali filed a direct appeal of his conviction in the California Court of Appeal, which affirmed his conviction in an unpublished opinion dated February 7, 2013. Id. Ali then filed a petition for review in the California Supreme Court. That Court summarily denied the petition on April 17, 2013.
On June 9, 2014, Ali filed a First Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus ("Petition") in this Court seeking habeas relief on twelve grounds.2 (ECF No. 6.) Respondents answered, and Ali filed a traverse. (ECF Nos. 10, 11.)
On March 16, 2015, Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo issued a Report and Recommendation, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, recommending that this Court deny Ali's Petition. (ECF No. 12 ("Report" or "R & R")) Among other things, the magistrate judge concluded that the California Court of Appeal's adjudication of Ali's claims was neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law.
Ali filed written objections to the Report on April 29, 2015, arguing that it erroneously resolves four of the twelve claims for relief raised in the Petition. (ECF No. 15 ("Pet'r's Objs.")) Ali's four remaining claims are based on: (1) the trial court's exclusion of certain hearsay statements; (2) the trial court's failure to instruct on third-party culpability; (3) the trial court's exclusion of a juror affidavit to impeach the verdict; and (4) cumulative error.
A district court's review of a magistrate judge's report and recommendation is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 636. Under this statute, a district court must review de novo "those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Only objections that reference specific portions of the report and recommendation will trigger de novo review—general or conclusory objections do not suffice. See, e.g. , Goney v. Clark , 749 F.2d 5, 7 (3d Cir. 1984) ( ). Where a petitioner does not object to a report and recommendation, or to portions thereof, the district court is not required to conduct "any review at all," de novo or otherwise. Thomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140, 149, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985) ; see also United States v. Reyna–Tapia , 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (). Upon review, the district judge "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings and recommendations made by the magistrate." 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C).
The power of a federal court to grant habeas relief on behalf of state prisoners is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 2254, as amended by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA"). Under AEDPA, a federal court may not grant habeas relief on any claim "adjudicated on the merits" in state court, unless the resulting decision "was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law," or "was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts" in light of the record before the state court. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2254(d)(1), (d)(2). The Supreme Court has made clear that AEDPA imposes a "highly deferential" standard of review that "demands that state-court decisions be given the benefit of the doubt." Woodford v. Visciotti , 537 U.S. 19, 24, 123 S.Ct. 357, 154 L.Ed.2d 279 (2002) (per curiam) (internal citation omitted...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. López-Martínez
...that the letter evinced, the court was not free to hear evidence in this regard under Fed.R.Evid. 606(b)); Ali v. R.T.C. Grounds, 236 F.Supp.3d 1241, 1263-1264 (S. D. Cal. 2017)(that juror said he was "leaning" towards a guilty vote because "he figured the District Attorney knew what he was......
-
Natural Res. Def. Council v. Norton
... ... (quoting Twombly , 550 U.S. at 556, 127 S.Ct. 1955 ). "While a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations, a Plaintiff's obligation to provide the grounds' of his entitlement to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Twombly , 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (internal citations omitted). Thus, "bare assertions ... amount[ing] to nothing more than a formulaic ... ...
-
Renteria v. United States
... ... 2020), Petitioner ... now moves the Court to vacate, set aside, or correct his ... sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (Doc. 4.) Magistrate ... Judge Bibles issued her R&R on August 10, 2021, ... recommending denial of Petitioner's motion on all five ... grounds. (Doc. 13.) Petitioner timely filed an objection to ... Magistrate Judge Bibles's determination ... on Ground Two that Mr. Eisenberg was not constitutionally ... ineffective for failing to investigate Petitioner's ... mental health and competency to stand trial. (Doc. 14.) ... ...
-
Jones v. PGA Tour, Inc.
...the specific objections raised by PIF and Al-Rumayyan regarding the magistrate judge's determination on each of these issues. See Ali, 236 F.Supp.3d at 1249 objections that reference specific portions of the report and recommendation will trigger de novo review....”). The Court is not requi......
-
Hearsay rule
...must be distinctly against the declarant’s interest and must be clothed with an indicia of reliability. Ahmed Ali v. R.T.C. Grounds , 236 F.Supp.3d 1241 (S.D. California, 2017). However, there is no litmus test for the determination of whether a statement is trustworthy or not; the trial co......
-
Hearsay rule
...must be distinctly against the declarant’s interest and must be clothed with an indicia of reliability. Ahmed Ali v. R.T.C. Grounds , 236 F.Supp.3d 1241 (S.D. California, 2017). However, there is no litmus test for the determination of whether a statement is trustworthy or not; the trial co......
-
Hearsay Rule
...must be distinctly against the declarant’s interest and must be clothed with an indicia of reliability. Ahmed Ali v. R.T.C. Grounds , 236 F.Supp.3d 1241 (S.D. California, 2017). However, there is no litmus test for the determination of whether a statement is trustworthy or not; the trial co......
-
Hearsay Rule
...must be distinctly against the declarant’s interest and must be clothed with an indicia of reliability. Ahmed Ali v. R.T.C. Grounds , 236 F.Supp.3d 1241 (S.D. California, 2017). However, there is no litmus test for the determination of whether a statement is trustworthy or not; the trial co......