Jones v. Robertson

ELLIOT LAWRENCE JONES II, Petitioner, v. JIM ROBERTSON, Respondent.

Case No. 1:20-cv-01357-DAD-EPG (HC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

May 5, 2021

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

Petitioner Elliot Lawrence Jones II is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In the petition, Petitioner's sole claim for relief is that the state court had insufficient evidence to sustain convictions on six counts of kidnapping for robbery.

For the reasons discussed herein, the undersigned recommends denial of the petition for writ of habeas corpus.

I.BACKGROUND

On September 18, 2017, Petitioner was convicted by a jury in the Kern County Superior Court of six counts of kidnapping for robbery (counts 4-9); first degree burglary (count 10); nine counts of false imprisonment (counts 11-19); seven counts of robbery (counts 20-26); and unlawful possession of a firearm (count 27). (2 CT¹ 567-70). Petitioner was then sentenced tosix indeterminate terms of life with a minimum parole eligibility date of fourteen years, plus a determinate term of 129 years, four months. (3 CT 662). On August 14, 2019, the California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District affirmed the judgment. People v. Jones, No. F076570, 2019 WL 3812363, at *12 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 14, 2019), review denied (Nov. 13, 2019), vacated, 2020 WL 814017 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 19, 2020).² Petitioner filed a petition for review in the California Supreme Court and the California Supreme Court summarily denied the petition on November 13, 2019. (LD³ 23, 24).

On September 23, 2020, Petitioner filed the instant federal petition for writ of habeas corpus. (ECF No. 1). Respondent has filed an answer to the petition, and Petitioner has filed a traverse. (ECF Nos. 12, 16).

II.STATEMENT OF FACTS⁴

As of December 5, 2015, Tony C. resided in an apartment on East Commercial Drive, in Ridgecrest.⁵ "Sam" stayed at the apartment sometimes.

Sometime after 6:00 p.m., Alexander B. went to the apartment to socialize. Tony, "T.J.," Leopoldo S., and someone Alexander knew as Casey were already at the apartment when Alexander arrived. Eventually, Tony and Casey left.

Alexander heard knocking on the front door and went to see who it was. Two African-American men, one tall and one shorter, were there. They asked for Tony. Alexander said he was not there right then but should be back soon. He invited the men inside to wait, then headed for the back bedroom, where he was playing video games. The two men walked behind him until they reached the bedroom, where there was a safe next to the door. The men seemed to be angry with Tony. They told those in the bedroom to sit down and pull out their wallets and phones, and they said they were going to take the safe. Each had a handgun. They were trying to figure out the combination to the safe. When Alexander said he did not know it, they started grabbing items and tried to carry the safe out of the apartment. They told Alexander, T.J., and Leopoldo to go in the closet and wait until they got done.

The two men asked Alexander if there was a bag or something they could use. He went into another room and got a backpack. When he returned, the pair told the others to get out of the closet. Shortly after, Alexander heard a knock at the door.

One or both suspects walked behind him to the front door while holding a gun on him. When Alexander opened the front door, three or four people he did not know were standing outside. The suspect told everyone to get inside. According to Alexander, the suspect told them to get on the ground and hand over their wallets and cell phones, then everyone was moved into the back bedroom. At some point, Alexander, Leopoldo, T.J., and the newcomers all were in the closet.

At approximately 8:00 that evening, Jacob C., Nolan C., Ryan M., Seth M., Savion T., and Aries P. went to the apartment. Seth and Ryan stopped to smoke a cigarette near the patio, while the others went to the front porch. Nolan knocked, and the door was opened after about five seconds. There were two men standing in the doorway. Both were African-American; one — defendant — was tall, while the other one was shorter and wore glasses. Nolan's group asked if Sam was there. The men said yes and welcomed the group inside.

Once the group came inside, the shorter man closed the door. He and defendant both put on ski masks with holes cut out for the eyes and mouth. Defendant had a silver and rusted metallic semiautomatic handgun, while the shorter man had a smaller black handgun.⁶

Defendant and his companion immediately started shoving the group away from the entranceway. They pointed their guns at the group of friends and pushed them further into the apartment. They moved the group out of the living room, into a short hallway, and into a very small closet.⁷ An Asian male and a Hispanic male, with whom Jacob was not acquainted at the time, were already in the closet. That meant six people were in the closet at that point. It was "[e]xtremely" cramped.

Defendant and his companion told the group not to move and asked where the safe was. When Savion and Nolan asked what safe, defendant and the shorter man said, "You know what we're talking about, the safe, Sam's safe." Defendant and his companion then commanded each man in turn to take everything out of his pockets.⁸ While this was happening, one man pointed his gun at the person emptying his pockets, while the other was waving his gun at the rest of those in the closet. Those in the closet handed over wallets and/or cell phones.⁹ One of themen said to tell Sam that two men had come and that Sam had to pay them. They said Sam owed them $2,000.

Meanwhile, Ryan and Seth were outside, smoking. At some point, a tall African-American man came up to them and told them to put out the cigarettes and follow him inside. Once inside, Ryan saw the shorter African-American man waiting at the opposite end of the living room. That shorter man was holding a small black handgun. The taller man then put a black and tan handgun to Ryan's back. The men told Ryan and Seth to drop whatever they had on them.

At some point, defendant ordered Ryan into the closet at gunpoint. The shorter man struck Seth in the face and shoved him into the closet. Defendant and the shorter man then ordered Ryan and Seth to stand up, one at a time, and empty out their pockets. They then closed the closet doors. There were now eight people in the closet.

Jacob heard defendant and the other man walk toward the living room. A Hispanic male eventually opened the closet door and asked why they were in the closet. Defendant and his companion were gone. Jacob estimated that he was in the closet for 10 minutes, and that five minutes elapsed from the time defendant and the shorter man shut the closet doors on the eight individuals to when the Hispanic male opened the closet door. Ryan, Jacob, Nolan, and Seth then drove to the police station to report what had happened.

On December 7, Cushman was at the apartment on East Commercial when Samuel C. arrived. Samuel showed Cushman incoming text messages on his cell phone. The messages read, "Call back, pussy. You gotta pay up"; "I'm watching your pad. Call me so we can talk"; "You talking to police"; and "Sammie?"

On the morning of December 10, defendant was apprehended in Las Vegas, Nevada. He was the sole occupant of a black Lexus ES sedan.¹⁰ A backpack in the trunk contained paperwork bearing defendant's name; a loaded, .40-caliber, black and steel semiautomatic handgun; and two cell phones. The number of one of those cell phones matched the number associated with the text messages Samuel showed Cushman on December 7.

Jones, 2020 WL 814017 at * 2-4 (footnotes in original).

III.STANDARD OF REVIEW

Relief by way of a petition for writ of habeas corpus extends to a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a state court if the custody is in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3); Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 375 (2000). Petitioner asserts that he suffered violations of his rights as guaranteedby the United States Constitution. The challenged conviction arises out of the Kern County Superior Court, which is located within the Eastern District of California. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d).

On April 24, 1996, Congress enacted the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA"), which applies to all petitions for writ of habeas corpus filed after its enactment. Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320 (1997); Jeffries v. Wood, 114 F.3d 1484, 1499 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc). The instant petition was filed after the enactment of AEDPA and is therefore governed by its provisions.

Under AEDPA, relitigation of any claim adjudicated on the merits in state court is barred unless a petitioner can show that the state court's adjudication of his 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.

28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); Davis v. Ayala, 576 U.S. 257, 268-69 (2015); Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 97-98 (2011); Williams, 529 U.S. at 413. Thus, if a petitioner's claim has been "adjudicated on the merits" in state court, "AEDPA's highly deferential standards" apply. Ayala, 576 U.S. at 269. However, if the state court did not reach the merits of the claim, the claim is reviewed de novo. Cone v. Bell, 556 U.S. 449, 472 (2009).

In ascertaining what is "clearly established Federal law," this Court must look to the "holdings, as opposed to the dicta, of [the Supreme Court's] decisions as of the time of the relevant state-court ...