Mendoza v. Sullivan

• Decision Date: 29 January 2021
• Docket Number: Case No. 8:19-cv-00622-MAA
• Citation: Mendoza v. Sullivan, Case No. 8:19-cv-00622-MAA (C.D. Cal. Jan 29, 2021)
• Court: U.S. District Court — Central District of California
• Parties: DANIEL MORA MENDOZA, Petitioner, v. W.J. SULLIVAN, Warden, Respondent.

DANIEL MORA MENDOZA, Petitioner, v. W.J. SULLIVAN, Warden, Respondent.

Case No. 8:19-cv-00622-MAA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

January 29, 2021

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

I.INTRODUCTION

On April 2, 2019, the Court received and filed PetitionerDaniel Mora Mendoza's ("Petitioner")pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254("Petition").(Pet., ECF No. 1.)The Petition challenges a 2017 judgment of conviction Petitioner sustained in the Orange County Superior Court.(Id. at 2.)¹On May 14, 2019, Respondent W.J.Sullivan ("Respondent") filed an Answer and an attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities ("Answer MP&A").(Answer, ECF No. 7;Answer MP&A, ECF No. 7-1.)Petitioner did not file a Reply.The matter now is ready for decision.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), the parties consented to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge.For the reasons stated below, the Court denies the Petition and dismisses this action with prejudice.

II.PROCEDURAL SUMMARY

In 2017, an Orange County Superior Court jury convicted Petitioner of second-degree robbery (Cal. Penal Code §§ 211and212.5)(Count One) and petty theft (Cal. Penal Code §§ 484(a)and488)(Count Two).(CT 183-84;3 RT, ECF No. 8-3, at 307-08.)The court sentenced Petitioner to state prison for a total term of three years.(CT 189-90; 3 RT 316-17.)

Petitioner appealed his judgment of conviction to the California Court of Appeal.(SeeLD 3, ECF No. 8-5.)The Court of Appeal issued a reasoned decision denying Petitioner's appeal and affirming the judgment.People v. Mendoza, No. G055457, 2018 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 8408(Cal. Ct. App.Dec. 13, 2018).(LD 6, ECF No. 8-8.)Petitioner filed a petition for review with the California Supreme Court(LD 7, ECF No. 8-9), which denied review without discussion or citation of authority, People v. Mendoza, No. S253042, 2019 Cal. LEXIS 1228(Cal.Feb. 20, 2019)(LD 8, ECF No. 8-10).

The Court received and filed the Petition on April 2, 2019.Respondent filed the Answer on May 14, 2019.Petitioner did not file a Reply.

III.FACTUAL SUMMARY

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1), a factual summary from a state appellate court's opinion is entitled to a presumption of correctness that may be rebutted only by clear and convincing evidence that the facts were otherwise.SeeHedlund v.Ryan, 854 F.3d 557, 563(9th Cir.2017).Petitioner does not challenge the following summary of the evidence presented at trial as described in the California Court of Appeal's decision of Petitioner's direct appeal²:

On April 16, 2017, Amanda Rodriguez was working as a greeter at a grocery store in Anaheim.Rodriguez saw a man, later identified as [Petitioner], bypass the cash registers and exit the store holding a clear bag containing several food items.Rodriguez followed [Petitioner] to the parking lot and asked if he had a receipt.Rodriguez responded "No, bitch.I don't have a receipt.I'm hungry³" in a loud tone.

Rodriguez reached to take the bag from [Petitioner].In response, [Petitioner]"smacked" Rodriguez's hand.Rodriguez told [Petitioner]she was going to call the authorities, to which he replied, "I don't care" and left.

Rodriguez called the police from the parking lot.She told the dispatcher a man had tried to assault her after stealing food items.Rodriguez gave police the make, model, and license plate number of the man's vehicle.Anaheim police identified [Petitioner] using his license plate number.Rodriguez identified [Petitioner] out of a six-pack photographic line-up.

Mendoza, 2018 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 8408, at *1-2(footnote renumbered).(LD 6at 2.)

///

IV.STANDARD OF REVIEW

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)("Section 2254(d)"), as amended by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA"):

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, 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.

Under AEDPA, the "clearly established Federal law" that controls federal habeas review of state-court decisions consists of the holdings, as opposed to the dicta, of Supreme Court decisions"as of the time of the relevant state-court decision."Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 412(2000).

Although a state-court decision may be both "contrary to" and "an unreasonable application of" controlling Supreme Court law, the two phrases have distinct meanings.Seeid. at 391, 412-13.A state-court decision is "contrary to" clearly established federal law if the decision either applies a rule that contradicts binding governing Supreme Court law or reaches a result that differs from the result the Supreme Court reached on "materially indistinguishable" facts.Early v. Packer, 537 U.S. 3, 8(2002)(per curiam);see alsoWoods v. Donald, 575 U.S. 312, 317(2015)("[I]f the circumstances of a case are only 'similar to' our precedents, then the state court's decision is not 'contrary to'the holdings in those cases.").When a state-court decision adjudicating a claim is contrary to controlling Supreme Court law, the reviewing federal habeas court is "unconstrained by § 2254(d)(1)."SeeWilliams, 529 U.S. at 406.

State-court decisions that are not "contrary to"Supreme Court law may be set aside on federal habeas review "only if they are not merely erroneous, but 'an unreasonable application' of clearly established federal law, or based on 'an unreasonable determination of the facts.'"Packer, 537 U.S. at 11(quotingSection 2254(d))(emphasis in original).A state-court decision that correctly identifies the governing legal rule may be rejected if it unreasonably applies the rule to the facts of a particular case.SeeWilliams, 529 U.S. at 406(providing, as an example, that a decision may state the Strickland standard correctly but apply it unreasonably).However, to obtain federal habeas relief for such an "unreasonable application,"a petitioner must show that the state court's application of Supreme Court law was "objectively unreasonable."Woodford v. Viscotti, 537 U.S. 19, 27(2002)(per curiam).An objectively unreasonable application is "not merely wrong; even 'clear error' will not suffice."White v. Woodall, 572 U.S. 415, 419(2014)(quotingLockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 75-76(2003)).Instead, "a state prisoner must show that the state court's ruling on the claim being presented in federal court was so lacking in justification that there was an error well understood and comprehended in existing law beyond any possibility for fairminded disagreement."Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 103(2011).The same standard of objective unreasonableness applies where the petitioner is challenging the state court's factual findings pursuant to Section 2254(d)(2).SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 340(2003)("[A] decision adjudicated on the merits in a state court and based on a factual determination will not be overturned on factual grounds unless objectively unreasonable in light of the evidence presented in the state-court proceeding . . . .").

In this case, as to both of the grounds raised in the instant Petition, the California Court of Appeal rejected Petitioner's claims on the merits in a reasoned decision.Mendoza, 2018 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 8408.(LD 6.)The California Supreme Court summarily denied review.Mendoza, 2019 Cal. LEXIS 1228.(LD8.)Therefore, for the purpose of AEDPA review, the California Court of Appeal's denial of Petitioner's claims is the relevant state-court adjudication.SeeWilson v. Sellers, 138 S. Ct. 1188, 1192(2018)(where state supreme court decision is unexplained, "the federal court should 'look through' the unexplained decision to the last related state-court decision that does provide a relevant rationale" and "presume that the unexplained decision adopted the same reasoning");see alsoAnderson v. Gipson, 902 F.3d 1126, 1131(9th Cir.2018)(where the California Supreme Court denies a petition for discretionary review of a direct appeal decision without comment, AEDPA review "focuses on the California Court of Appeal's reasoning in denying relief").

V.DISCUSSION

Petitioner asserts two grounds for relief:

1.The trial court violated Petitioner's due process rights by excluding Petitioner's "I'm hungry" statement.

2.The trial court's jury instruction on the "force or fear" element of second-degree robbery violated Petitioner's due process rights because it was duplicative, argumentative, and confusing.

(SeePet. 5, 15, 18-33.)⁴The Court considers each of these grounds and concludes that Petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas relief.Consequently, the Petition is denied.

///

///

///

A.Ground One

In Ground One, Petitioner claims that the trial court abused its discretion and violated his federal due process rights when it excluded the "I'm hungry" portion of his statement to Ms. Rodriguez.(Pet. 5, 15, 18-29.)Incorporating the arguments that he raised in his counseled petition for review to the California Supreme Court, Petitioner argues that this statement should have been admitted pursuant to the "rule of completeness"—codified at California Evidence Code section 356—because it was relevant and necessary to understand the admitted portion of Petitioner's statement, and that its probative value was not substantially outweighed by its prejudicial impact on the prosecution under California Evidence Code section 352.(Id. at 18-27.)Petitioner further...