Riley v. Bird

1

LESTER KENJI RILEY, Petitioner, v. LANDON BIRD, Respondent.

No. 21cv1805-TWR(LR)

United States District Court, S.D. California

March 29, 2024

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION FOR ORDER DENYING FOURTH AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS [ECF No 17]

Honorable Lupe Rodriguez, Jr. United States Magistrate Judge

This Report and Recommendation is submitted to the Honorable Todd W. Robinson, United States District Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1) and Civil Local Rules 72.1(d) of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. On October 21, 2021, Petitioner Lester Kenji Riley, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, commenced these habeas corpus proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 by filing a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”). (ECF No. 1.) After several amendments, on March 24, 2022, Petitioner filed his Fourth Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Fourth Amended Petition”), the operative pleading in this case. (ECF No. 17 (“FAP”); see also ECF Nos. 10 & 15.) Respondent filed an Answer to Plaintiff's Fourth Amended Petition, and Petitioner filed a Traverse and an Amended Traverse. (See ECF Nos. 23, 51, 56 58.)

This Court has considered the Fourth Amended Petition, Answer, Traverse, Amended Traverse, and all supporting documents filed by the parties. For the reasons set forth below, this Court RECOMMENDS that Petitioner's Fourth Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be DENIED.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The following facts are taken from the California Court of Appeal's opinion in People v. Riley, Appeal No. D077512. (See Lodgment 8.) This Court presumes the state court's factual determinations to be correct, absent clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 340 (2003).

75-year-old S.H. was on an evening walk with his adult daughter and her two young children. As the family waited at a crosswalk to cross the street, Riley approached them with a steak knife in his hand. Riley made eye contact with S.H. and, without saying a word, rushed at S.H. and started stabbing him. Neither men knew each other. As S.H. tried to back away, he tripped over a rock and fell on his back. Riley continued stabbing S.H. When a witness across the street yelled at Riley-“Hey, what are you doing?”-Riley stopped and fled. Riley never said a word during the attack.

Police responded within minutes and quickly located Riley about a block away from the crime scene, still holding the knife. He eventually complied with police commands to drop the knife but refused to get on the ground. The police fired a beanbag round and tased Riley to make him comply. As he was being arrested, Riley made “mostly nonsensical” statements to the officers. Concerned he may be suicidal, the officers transported Riley for a mental health evaluation. Blood drawn from Riley did not detect alcohol or drugs in his system.

Riley stabbed S.H. at least five times, including once in the face above his eye, twice in his upper chest, and twice in his left arm. At the hospital, S.H. received stitches, but he did not need surgery and he went home the same day.

(Lodgment 8 at 2-3 (footnote omitted).)

II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. Petitioner's Criminal Conviction and Direct Appeal

On December 12, 2019, a jury convicted Petitioner of attempted murder (California Penal Code sections 187(a) and 664), assault with a deadly weapon (California Penal Code section 245(a)(1)), and two misdemeanor counts of cruelty to a child (California Penal Code section 273a(b)). (See Lodgment 1 at 70-73, 156.) With respect to the attempted murder and assault charges, the jury also found true the allegations that Petitioner inflicted great bodily injury upon an elderly person (California Penal Code section 12022.7(c)) and personally used a knife (California Penal Code section 12022(b)(1)). (Id. at 70-71, 156.) On February 13, 2020, Petitioner was sentenced to fifteen years in state prison. (See Lodgment 1 at 158-59; see also Lodgment 8 at 3.)

Petitioner appealed his conviction to the California Court of Appeal, arguing that (1) the trial court erred in finding that he was competent to stand trial and in failing to order a second competency hearing at the time of sentencing, and (2) there was insufficient evidence to support his attempted murder conviction. (Lodgment 5.) On May 27, 2021, the California Court of Appeal found that (1) substantial evidence supported the trial court's initial determination that Petitioner was competent to stand trial, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by not suspending criminal proceedings at the time of sentencing to conduct a second competency evaluation, and (2) substantial evidence supported the jury's finding that Petitioner had the specific intent to kill to support his attempted murder conviction. (Lodgment 8 at 11, 13, 16.)

Petitioner filed a petition for review in the California Supreme Court raising the same claims he raised before the state appellate court. (See Lodgment 9; see also Lodgment 5.) On August 11, 2021, the California Supreme Court summarily denied the petition. (Lodgment 10.)

B. Petitioner's State Habeas Petitions

Petitioner filed three habeas petitions in the San Diego County Superior Court. On October 27, 2021, Petitioner filed his first petition for writ of habeas corpus, arguing that he was innocent of the attempted murder charge, the victim lied when he stated he did not speak English, that Petitioner wanted to be released based on the four-to-six year deal he had been offered before the trial, and that he wanted to “fight the child endangerment” charges. (Lodgment 11; see also Lodgment 12 at 2.) On December 28, 2021, the San Diego County Superior Court denied the petition. (Lodgment 12.)

On February 28, 2022, Petitioner filed his second petition for writ of habeas corpus, arguing that trial court erred in finding him competent to stand trial, there was insufficient evidence to convict him, and the victim did not testify voluntarily. (See Lodgment 13.) On March 21, 2022, Petitioner filed his third petition for writ of habeas corpus, arguing that the trial court erred in finding him competent to stand trial and by not setting an additional competency hearing, and that there was insufficient evidence to support his attempted murder conviction. (Lodgment 14.) On April 14, 2022, in one order, the San Diego County Superior Court denied Petitioner's second and third petitions. (Lodgment 15.)

C. Petitioner's Federal Habeas Petition

On October 21, 2021, Petitioner filed his federal Petition in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. (ECF No. 1.) In his operative pleading, the Fourth Amended Petition, Petitioner asserts the following claims: (1) the trial court erred in finding that he was competent to stand trial and in failing to order a second competency hearing, and (2) the evidence was insufficient to support his attempted murder conviction. (See FAP at 5-10.) On May 31, 2022, Respondent filed an Answer to Plaintiff's Second Amended Petition. (ECF No. 23.)

On February 14, 2024, the Court issued an order directing Respondent to file a supplemental pleading and setting briefing schedule. (ECF No. 50.) On February 27, 2024, Respondent filed a document “ask[ing] this Court to construe [Respondent's] Answer to the Second Amended Petition and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support thereof, filed on May 31, 2022,” as Respondent's Answer to Petitioner's Fourth Amended Petition. (ECF No. 51 at 2.) On March 14, 2024, Petitioner filed his Traverse, and on March 22, 2024, his Supplemental Traverse. (See ECF Nos. 56 & 58.)

III. SCOPE OF REVIEW

Petitioner's Fourth Amended Petition is governed by the provisions of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”). See Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 326 (1997). Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), as amended by AEDPA:

(d) 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.

28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); see also Early v. Packer, 537 U.S. 3, 7-8 (2002). In making this determination, a reviewing federal court must first identify the appropriate state court decision to review. Where there is no reasoned decision from the state's highest court, the reviewing 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.” Wilson v. Sellers, 584 U.S. 1188, 1192 (2018); see also Ylst v. Nunnemaker, 501 U.S. 797, 803-04 (1991) (providing that a reviewing federal court may “look through” to the last reasoned state court decision).

A state court's decision is “contrary to” clearly established federal law if the state court (1) “applies a rule different from the governing law set forth in [United States Supreme Court] cases,” or (2) “decides a case differently than [the United States Supreme Court] has done on a set of materially indistinguishable facts.” See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685, 694 (2002); Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 405-06 (2000). An “unreasonable application” of clearly established federal law...