Edwards v. Miller

SAMUEL EDWARDS, Petitioner, v. AMY MILLER, Warden, et al., Respondents.

Civil No. 14cv0429 JAH(KSC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

June 1, 2016

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. #28); OVERRULING PETITIONER'S OBJECTIONS (DOC. # 33); DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (DOC. # 1); DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL (DOC. # 37); DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S DISCOVERY ORDER (DOC. # 47); GRANTING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY AS TO CLAIMS 1 AND 2; DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY AS TO CLAIMS 3, 4, 5, AND 6.

Pending before this Court are: (1) the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Karen S. Crawford recommending that the Court deny Petitioner Samuel Edwards's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. # 28); (2) Petitioner's Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. # 37); and (3) Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge's Discovery Order (Doc. # 47). For the reasons set forth below, the Court ADOPTS the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations (Doc. # 28), OVERRULES Petitioner's objections in their entirety (Doc. # 33), DENIES the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. # 1); DENIES Petitioner's Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. # 37), DENIES Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. # 47), GRANTS a certificate of appealability as to Petitioner's claims 1 and 2, and DENIES a certificate of appealability as to Petitioner's claims 3, 4, 5 and 6.

I. BACKGROUND

On June 14, 2010, a jury convicted Petitioner of four counts of robbery in violation of California Penal Code § 211 and use of a firearm during the commission of the robberies in violation of California Penal Code § 12022.53(b). In a bench trial held that same day, the state trial judge found true all prior conviction allegations and sentenced Petitioner to thirty-two years in state prison.

Petitioner appealed his conviction to both the California Court of Appeal and the California Supreme Court. (Lodgments 3, 7). His appeals were denied on August 16, 2012 and October 24, 2012, respectively. (Lodgments 6, 8). Petitioner then filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the California Supreme Court, which was denied on May 15, 2013. (Lodgments 9, 10). On September 16, 2013, Petitioner filed an additional petition for writ of habeas corpus in the California Supreme Court. The petition was denied on January 15, 2014. (See Lodgments 11, 12).

On February 24, 2014, Petitioner filed the instant Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus ("Petition") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. # 1). In the Petition, Petitioner challenges his California state court conviction on the grounds that: (1) he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel, (2) DNA evidence was improperly admitted at trial in violation of his due process rights, (3) he received ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, (4) there was insufficient evidence to support his count one and two convictions, (5) there was insufficient evidence to support his count three and four convictions, and (6) he was denied the right to confront witnesses against him in violation of the Sixth Amendment. On May 8, 2014, Respondent filed a response. (Doc. # 9). Petitioner then filed a traverse on July 22, 2014. (Doc. # 17). On August 7, 2014, Petitioner filed amotion to supplement his motion for an evidentiary hearing. (Doc. # 19). Next, Petitioner filed a motion for appointment of an expert witness on January 9, 2015. (Doc. # 27).

On April 1, 2015, Magistrate Judge Crawford issued a Report and Recommendation ("Report") recommending that this Court deny the Petition. (Doc. # 28). In the Report, the magistrate judge also denied Petitioner's requests for an evidentiary hearing, discovery, appointment of counsel, and appointment of an expert witness. Id. Petitioner filed his objections to the Report and the denial of his various requests on June 26, 2015. (Doc. # 33). In his objections, Petitioner contends that: (1) there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction on count one, (2) there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction on count three, (3) Petitioner received ineffective assistance of trial counsel, and (4) DNA evidence was improperly admitted against him at trial. Petitioner further asserts that the magistrate judge erred in denying Petitioner's requests for: (1) an evidentiary hearing, (2) discovery, (3) appointment of an expert witness, and (4) appointment of counsel. Thereafter, Petitioner filed another motion for appointment of counsel on June 29, 2015. (Doc. # 37). Finally, Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration on March 8, 2016. (Doc. # 47).

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The following factual background is taken from the California Court of Appeal's opinion in People v. Edwards, unpublished opinion (Cal. Ct. App., 4th Dist., Div.1, August 16, 2012). (See Lodgment 6).

May 24 Robbery (Count 1)

On the night of May 24, 2009, Tiffany Brown drove Edwards, Rashun Mitchell and Clayton Gaunce to a Holiday Inn Express in Oceanside. (All further date references are to the year 2009.) Edwards and Mitchell are both African-American, and Gaunce is White. While Mitchell went inside the hotel, Edwards and Gaunce put on masks, hats and sweaters. Gaunce gave Edwards a silver gun.

Jillian Gomez was the front desk clerk at the hotel that night. Around 11:30 p.m., Mitchell came to the door and Gomez let him inside. After Mitchell left, Edwards walked in, pointed a gun at Gomez and directed her to unlock the door for his accomplice. Edwards and Gaunce took Gomez's wallet from her purse and money from the cash drawer in the hotel. Beforeleaving, the men forced Gomez to lie face down and tied her hands behind her back with zip ties.

May 25 Robbery (Count 2)

Later that night, Brown drove Edwards, Mitchell and Gaunce to the Best Western in Oceanside. The three men put on masks, hats, and dark colored "hoodies" and told Brown to go inside the hotel. Brown went in the hotel to determine if there was a plexiglass barrier at the front desk and then returned to the car. Gaunce again gave Edwards the gun and the three men got out of the car.

Juan Sarmiento was the front desk clerk that night at the Best Western. Shortly before 3:00 a.m., three men came into the hotel. Two of them were wearing "hoodies" and one was wearing a mask. The man wearing the mask pointed a silver gun at Sarmiento and ordered him to get on the ground. The men tied Sarmiento's hands behind his back with zip ties and asked him where the money was kept. After taking approximately $300, the men left the hotel.

When Edwards, Gaunce and Mitchell returned to Brown's car Edwards was holding the gun. Brown drove them away from the hotel and took Edwards and Gaunce to the Mt. Vernon Inn where they were renting a room.

May 29 Robbery (Count 3)

On May 29, Evan Beattie was working the front desk at the Best Western in Oceanside. At approximately 2:30 a.m., two individuals wearing ski masks came into the hotel lobby. One of the men was wearing a dark colored "hoodie" and the other had on a jacket with a hood. Beattie immediately noticed that one of the men was pointing a silver or chrome colored gun at his head. The men jumped over the counter, ordered Beattie to get on the ground and then tied his hands behind his back with zip ties. They asked where the safe was located and after Beattie told them there was no money in the safe, they asked him about the cash drawer. The men took approximately $190 from the cash drawer and left the hotel.

May 30 Robbery (Count 4)

On May 30, Neil Shamon was working as the night clerk at the Mt. Vernon Inn in Escondido. At around midnight, three men walked into the hotel. One of those men pointed a silver gun at Shamon and demanded to know where the money was located. After Shamon told them the money was in the register, the men walked behind the counter, forced Shamon to put his hands behind his back, and tied him up with zip ties.

A guest at the Mt. Vernon Inn, Sandy Machin, entered the lobby and noticed that the hotel was being robbed by two African-American men and either a White or Asian man. When Machin turned around and walked out, one of the African-American men chased him and told him not to say anything. The other African-American man came out of the lobby, put a silver gun to Machin's forehead, and also told him not to say anything. Machin testified that the African-American man that chased him was not Edwards.

The three men left the hotel with approximately $600. Machin went back into the hotel lobby and untied Shamon. Shamon called the police.

Investigation

On June 3, police officers found Edwards, Gaunce and two other people in a hotel room at the Best Value Inn in Escondido. Gaunce and Edwards said that the room was registered to them. Inside the room, officers found a silver gun behind the television. They also found a black "hoodie" with gloves and a ski mask in the pockets.

A DNA analysis performed on the gun showed that at least two people contributed to the DNA found on the trigger, with Gaunce being a major contributor. Edwards was a major contributor of DNA found on the mask and sweatshirt.

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

A. Scope of Review of Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation

The district court "shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report ... to which objection is made," and "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b). A district court may adopt those parts of a magistrate judge's report to which no specific objection is made, provided they are not clearly erroneous. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 153-55 (1985).

B. Scope of Review of Federal Habeas Petition Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254

This Petition is governed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). Under AEDPA, a federal court will not grant habeas relief...