Woods v. Barnes

• Decision Date: 06 November 2017
• Docket Number: NO. CV 12-8300 JFW (AS),CV 12-8300 JFW (AS)
• Parties: LIONEL LOURAWLS WOODS, Petitioner, v. RON BARNES, Respondent.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Central District of California

LIONEL LOURAWLS WOODS, Petitioner, v. RON BARNES, Respondent.

NO. CV 12-8300 JFW (AS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

November 6, 2017

FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF A UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This Final Report and Recommendation is submitted to the Honorable John F. Walter, United States District Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and General Order 05-07 of the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

I.INTRODUCTION

On September 26, 2012, Lionel Lowrawls Woods ("Petitioner"), a California state prisoner proceeding through counsel, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus ("Petition") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Dkt. No. 1). On October 3, 2012, Petitioner filed a request to stay the Petition and hold it in abeyance pending exhaustion of issues in state court, which United States Magistrate Judge Paul L. Abrams granted on October 5, 2012.¹ (Dkt. Nos. 4, 7). Thereafter, on September 1, 2014, Petitioner filed a First Amended Petition ("FAP") as well as an accompanying memorandum of points and authorities ("FAP Mem."). (Dkt. Nos. 45-46). The FAP raised eight grounds for habeas corpus relief. (Id.).

On March 17, 2015, Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss the FAP, contending that Grounds Six and Seven, and the portion of Ground Eight addressing Grounds Six and Seven, were untimely. (Dkt. No. 60). On October 27, 2015, the Court issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the Motion to Dismiss be granted. (Dkt. No. 77). On June 2, 2016, the undersigned approved the parties' stipulation to voluntarily dismiss with prejudice Grounds Six, Seven and the portion of Ground Eight addressing Grounds Six and Seven, denied Respondent's Motion to Dismiss as moot, and withdrew the Report and Recommendation. (Dkt. Nos. 82-83).

On December 2, 2016, Respondent filed an Answer with an accompanying memorandum of points and authorities ("Ans. Mem."). (Dkt. No. 94). Petitioner filed a Reply with an accompanying memorandum of points and authorities on May 3, 2017, and a corrected memorandum of points and authorities ("Reply Mem.") on May 4, 2017. (Dkt. Nos. 108-09, 112).

On August 28, 2017, the undersigned issued a Report and Recommendation. (Dkt. No. 114). On October 11, 2017, Petitioner, through counsel, filed Objections to the Report and Recommendation. (Dkt. No. 124). The Court now issues this Final Report and Recommendation to address Petitioner's Objections.

For the reasons discussed below, it is recommended that the Petition be DENIED and that this action be DISMISSED with prejudice.

II.PRIOR PROCEEDINGS

On June 4, 2008, a San Luis Obispo County Superior Court jury found Petitioner guilty of one count of conspiracy to commit robbery in violation of California Penal Code ("P.C.") § 182(a)(1) (count 5), and found true the allegation that Petitioner committed the crime for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal street gang with the specific intent to promote, further or assist in criminal conduct by gang members within the meaning of P.C. § 186.22(b)(1). (Clerk's Transcript ("CT") 1984-85, 1997; Reporter's Transcript ("RT") 11152-55).² The trial court subsequently found true the allegations that Petitioner had previously been convicted of twoserious violent felonies within the meaning of California's Three Strikes law, P.C. §§ 667(b)-(i) & 1170.12(a)-(d), and one serious felony within the meaning of P.C. § 667(a). (CT 1998; 11172-75). On January 15, 2009, the trial court sentenced Petitioner to 35-years-to-life in state prison. (CT 3413, 3415-16; RT 16243-44).

Petitioner appealed his conviction and sentence to the California Court of Appeal, which on March 14, 2011, modified Petitioner's judgment to reflect a $20 court security fee and affirmed the judgment as modified. (Lodgments 1, 16-18). Petitioner then filed a petition for review in the California Supreme Court, which summarily denied the petition on June 29, 2011. (Lodgments 2-3).

On October 4, 2012, Petitioner filed a habeas corpus petition in the California Supreme Court, which denied the petition on December 12, 2012, with citation to In re Waltreus, 62 Cal. 2d 218, 225 (1965) and In re Lindley, 29 Cal. 2d 709, 723 (1947). (Lodgments 4-5). On December 5, 2012, Petitioner filed a habeas corpus petition in the San Luis Obispo County Superior Court, which denied the petition on December 18, 2012. (Lodgments 6-7). On February 5, 2013, Petitioner filed a habeas corpus petition in the California Court of Appeal, which denied the petition on March 27, 2013 with citation to People v. Duvall, 9 Cal. 4th 464, 474 (1995). (Lodgments 8-9). On April 8, 2013, Petitioner filed a second habeas corpus petition in the California Court of Appeal, which was summarily denied on June 17, 2013. (Lodgments 10-11). On July 24, 2013, Petitioner filed a second habeas corpus petition in the California Supreme Court, which deniedthe petition on November 13, 2013 with citation to In re Clark, 5 Cal. 4th 750, 767-69 (1993). (Lodgments 12-13).

III.FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The following facts, taken from the California Court of Appeal's decision on direct review, have not been rebutted with clear and convincing evidence and must be presumed correct. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1); Slovik v. Yates, 556 F.3d 747, 749 n.1 (9th Cir. 2009).

Counts 1-4: Jones - Downey Savings Robbery

On November 21, 2007, an African-American woman attempted to open an account at Downey Savings in San Luis Obispo. The woman had no identification and left. Seconds later, two African-American men wearing masks entered the bank, took about $11,000 from the cashiers and $160 from a customer. One of the robbers brandished a pellet gun.

. . . Leonard Jones rendezvoused with the bank robbers and the woman at Karl Jones' (Karl)[ ^{fn. 3} ] house a few minutes after the robbery. The group divided the money and left.

[Fn. 3] Karl Jones in not related to . . . Leonard Jones. . . .

Karl, a police informant, told the police that his house was used by Leonard Jones to stage the robbery. Karl met with a FBI agent and turned over the pellet gun that was loaned to Jones for the robbery. Karl identified photos of Jones and of one of the bank robbers, Dejuan Javier,[ ^{fn. 4} ] and said that the second robber looked like Ean Domingo's photo.

[Fn. 4] Dejuan Javier was convicted of four counts of robbery with street gang enhancements in a separate proceeding [that was affirmed on appeal]

Count 5: December 13, 2007 Conspiracy to Rob Los Padres Bank

The FBI placed a tracking device on Jones' Nissan and monitored his movements to Los Angeles and back to San Luis Obispo. On December 12, 2007, officers observed Jones go to Laguna Plaza near Karl's house.

Jones returned to the house and stated that he was robbing a bank the next day. Jones showed Karl the escape route and asked Karl to assist in the getaway. Jones planned to commit a lot more crimes in San Luis Obispo because it was a "Mayberry RFD type town, very slow."

Karl warned the police about the planned bank robbery. Earlier that day, Jones checked into the Rose Garden Inn, located a short distance from Laguna Plaza.

At 6:50 a.m. on December 13, 2007, Mitchell, Quinney, Lovely, Simpson, [Petitioner], and a sixth man, Paul Goins, drove up to Jones' hotel in three vehicles. The group parked next to Jones' car and spoke to Jones. Jones led everyone to Karl's house and to Laguna Plaza where the Los Padres Bank was located.

Returning to Karl's house, the group prepared for the robbery and discussed how they would share the robbery proceeds. A police surveillance team monitored the conversations through a listening device that Karl was carrying.[ ^{fn. 5} ]

[Fn. 5] Detective Allison Martinez of the San Luis Obispo Police Department, testified that she listened to . . . Jones telling his coconspirators to leave their cell phones at Karl's house. She also heard a conversation concerning a "cooler or water bucket." In addition to Detective Martinez, Goins testified that he was present when the conspirators discussed how the money would be divided.

A few minutes after the Los Padres Bank opened, [Petitioner and his co-defendants] were arrested leaving the house in three vehicles. Mitchell was driving a Mercury sedan with Quinney and Simpson seated in the vehicle wearing hooded sweatshirts. Inside the Mercury, officers found two pairs of gloves, pillow cases, a disposable respirator mask, and a bucket of water.

FBI Special Agent Douglas Oliver testified that bank robbers use water containers to submerge stolen bank money bundled with dye packs. The water prevents the dye packs from exploding and damaging the money. Special Agent Oliver stated that it was common for bank robbers to use chase cars to divert the police and do a "dry run" before committing a robbery.

Goins' Testimony

Paul Goins entered a plea to attempted robbery and testified for the prosecution. Goins' testimony and statements to the police established the following: [¶] Goins lived in Los Angeles and was [Petitioner's] brother. On the evening of December 12, 2007, [Petitioner] called and asked Goins to participate in a bank robbery. [Petitioner] also wanted to talk to Lovely, Goins' cousin.

Lovely called late that night and asked Goins to pick him up. Goins and Lovely drove to a service station where Mitchell was waiting. After Mitchell picked up Quinney and Simpson in Inglewood, they joined [Petitioner].

The group drove north through the night, meeting Jones in San Luis Obispo early the next morning. Jones and [Petitioner] were long time friends.

Jones took the group to Karl's house and to Laguna Plaza where they cased the Los Padres Bank. Mitchell was to drop"the two youngsters" (Quinney and Simpson) off and pick them up after they robbed the bank. Goins' job was to drive one of the robbers back to Los Angeles.

After casing the bank, the group returned to Karl's house, got ready for the robbery, and discussed how they would share the robbery proceeds. Jones and [Petitioner]

...