Beadle v. Allison

• Decision Date: 11 February 2022
• Docket Number: CV 21-3021-CAS (E)
• Parties: JEFFERY FLOYD BEADLE, Petitioner, v. KATHLEEN ALLISON, Warden, Respondent.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Central District of California

JEFFERY FLOYD BEADLE, Petitioner, v. KATHLEEN ALLISON, Warden, Respondent.

No. CV 21-3021-CAS (E)

United States District Court, C.D. California

February 11, 2022

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

CHARLES F. EICK, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

This Report and Recommendation is submitted to the Honorable Christina A. Snyder, United States District Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 636 and General Order 05-07 of the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

PROCEEDINGS

On April 5, 2021, Petitioner filed a "Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus By a Person in State Custody." On October 5, 2021, Respondent filed an Answer. On December 20, 2021 Petitioner filed a "Denial and Exception to the Return etc." and various exhibits, collectively comprising Petitioner's Reply.

BACKGROUND

A jury found Petitioner guilty of: (1) one count of unlawful sexual intercourse with Asriah T., a non-spouse minor, within the meaning of California Penal Code section 261.5(c), with infliction of great bodily injury within the meaning of California Penal Code section 12022.7(a) (Count One); (2) one count of human trafficking of a minor, Asriah T., for a commercial sex act in violation of California Penal Code section 236.1(c) (Count Two);^[1] (3) one count of pimping a minor sixteen years of age or older in violation of California Penal Code section 266h(b)(1) (Count Three);^[2] (4) one count of pandering by encouraging Asriah T., a minor over the age of sixteen, to be a prostitute in violation of California Penal Code section 266i(b)(1) (Count Four);^[3] and (5) seven counts of dissuading a witness, Asriah T., from testifying in violation of California Penal Code section 136.1(a)(1) (Counts Five through Eleven) (Reporter's Transcript ["R.T."] 564-70; Clerk's Transcript ["C.T."] 235-51). Petitioner admitted that he had suffered a prior felony conviction alleged as a strike within the meaning of California's Three Strikes Law^[4] (R.T. 410; C.T. 170, 177). The court sentenced Petitioner to a total term of forty-seven years and four months (R.T. 582-85; C.T. 262-69) .

Petitioner appealed, alleging that: (1) the evidence assertedly was insufficient to support Petitioner's convictions on the dissuading counts; (2) the trial court committed instructional error with respect to the dissuading counts; (3) the sentences on four of the dissuading counts allegedly were erroneous; and (4) remand allegedly was required for resentencing under Senate Bill 1393^[5] (see Respondent's Lodgments 4, 6). The California Court of Appeal affirmed (Respondent's Lodgment 7; see People v. Beadle, 2019 WL 6206371 (Cal.App. Nov. 21, 2019)). On February 19, 2020, the California Supreme Court summarily denied Petitioner's petition for review (Respondent's Lodgments 8, 9).

In the interim, on January 16, 2020, Petitioner filed a habeas corpus petition in the California Court of Appeal (case number B303678), contending that Petitioner had not received a "non-violent parole eligibility date" under Proposition 57, Cal. Const, art. I, section 32(a)(1) (Respondent's Lodgment 10). On January 21, 2020, the Court of Appeal denied the petition without prejudice (Respondent's Lodgment 11).

On May 13, 2020, Petitioner filed a habeas corpus petition in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, alleging the claims asserted in the present federal Petition (Respondent's Lodgment 12). On June 23, 2020, the Superior Court denied the petition, holding that: (1) Petitioner had failed to allege facts establishing a prima facie claim for relief; (2) the petition argued claims which had been raised and rejected on appeal; (3) with respect to the claims of alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel, Petitioner had failed to show a reasonable probability that a more favorable outcome would have resulted but for counsel's alleged ineffectiveness; and (4) with respect to the alleged ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, Petitioner had failed to show counsel's alleged ineffectiveness or any resulting prejudice (Respondent's Lodgment 13).

On May 27, 2020, Petitioner filed a second habeas corpus petition in the California Court of Appeal (case number B306117), raising a parole eligibility claim (Respondent's Lodgments 14). On June 1, 2020, the Court of Appeal summarily denied the petition (Respondent's Lodgment 15). On August 26, 2020, Petitioner filed a third habeas corpus petition in the Court of Appeal (case number B307211), raising the claims asserted in the present federal Petition, which that court denied summarily on September 4, 2020 (Respondent's Lodgment 16; Petition, p. 4).^[6]

On October 9, 2020, Petitioner filed a habeas corpus petition in the California Supreme Court (case number S264959), alleging the claims asserted in the present federal Petition (Respondent's Lodgment 18). On March 10, 2021, the California Supreme Court denied the petition summarily (Respondent's Lodgment 19).

SUMMARY OF TRIAL EVIDENCE

The Court has conducted an independent review of the Reporter's Transcript and has confirmed the accuracy of the following summary of the evidence in People v Beadle, 2019 WL 6206371 (Cal.App. Nov. 21, 2019). See Nasby v. McDaniel, 853 F.3d 1049, 1052-53 (9th Cir. 2017); see also Slovik v. Yates, 556 F.3d 747, 749 n.l (9th Cir. 2009) (taking factual summary from state court decision).

Counts 1-4

[Petitioner] met A.T. ^[7] ¶ 2014, shortly before she turned 16 years old. A few months later, they began living together in a motor home. [Petitioner] initially thought A.T. was 18, but when he discovered her true age he "didn't care."

A.T. told [Petitioner] she had previously been a prostitute. [Petitioner] asked her to start working as a prostitute again and she agreed so they "could have money." [Petitioner] decided when she worked and how many "dates" or "tricks" she saw. A.T considered [Petitioner] to be both her boyfriend and her pimp and eventually had two children with him.

On October 21, 2015, A.T. arranged to meet a "date" at a shopping center. Unbeknownst to her, the "date" was an undercover police officer. When she was arrested she provided a false name to the police, said she was 18 or 19 years old, and claimed that [Petitioner] was her uncle. When she was interviewed at the police station, she admitted that she and [Petitioner] had been living together for approximately eight months, that she told him she was only 16, and that he had asked her to start working as a prostitute again. She also said [Petitioner] solicited for her by posting online advertisements without her knowledge and then told her they needed money for food.

Dissuading a Victim or Witness from Testifying

(Counts 5-7)

[Petitioner] was arrested and charged with human trafficking and pimping and pandering, but he was later released and the charges were dismissed because A.T.'s whereabouts were unknown until July 2016. In November 2016, the police found [Petitioner] in New Mexico and arrested him again.

Count 8: On January 27, 2017, [Petitioner] called A.T. from jail and told her that the police were "wolves" and she was "the little precious lamb," that the police knew where she was living and were "eventually going to get her," and that she should "move out of that location."

Count 5: On February 16, [Petitioner] called A.T., and [Petitioner reprimanded A.T. for speaking to the police and said, "I already tried to make myself clear . . . that . . . the lamb needed to get the fuck gone because . . . all they need is her to be in that courtroom and they're going to do everything they fucking can to catch her." [Petitioner] also told A.T., "[Y]ou're fucking stupid as a motherfucker" and ended the call by telling her, "Live your life, bitch."

Count 9: Approximately two hours later, [Petitioner] called A.T. again and said, "If you loved me, you would listen to what the fuck I told you from the get-go. . . ." A.T. told [Petitioner] she would not be going to court and was "not even going to be around here." [Petitioner] replied, "I don't know, but you better do something." [Petitioner] ended the call by telling A.T., "You better be glad I ain't there. I'd choke the shit out of you and slap the shit out of you and fuck the dog shit out [of] you right now, you know it?"

Count 6: On February 20, [Petitioner] called A.T. to discuss her anticipated appearance in court the following day for the preliminary hearing, which the defense was seeking to continue. [Petitioner] told A.T. to tell the judge "I want to speak to you" and "let him know" that law enforcement "told you that . . . you'll get set free and go home to your grandma and all that shit if you lie and tell them . . . what they wanted you to say." [Petitioner] also said, "[Y]ou want to make sure that you get . . . your point across to . . . the judge and the judge only. You know what I'm saying?"

Count 7: On February 21, [Petitioner's] motion to continue the preliminary hearing was granted. Later that day, [Petitioner] called A.T. and said, "When in the fuck are you going to listen to what I tell you? I sat there and told you exactly everything that was going to take place in the courtroom. And everything that I told you was going to happen in the courtroom, it fuckin' happened and you ignored everything I fuckin' told you. What the fuck is wrong with you?" [Petitioner] also told A.T., "The DA . . . made it out like everything's gonna be all good. Oh we got her now, she's right in the courtroom. She'll be here on preliminary hearing. . . . And you're just going along with it, allowing them to . . . think that everything's fuckin' good when everything ain't fucking good. . . . Thanks a fuckin' lot, dude." [Petitioner] ended the call by saying, "[T]hanks a fuckin' lot. Fuckin' piece of shit. Fuck you bitch."

Count 10: Later that

...