Opinion
2:21-CV-02415-KJM-DMC-P
01-12-2023
MAURICE D. HIGGS, Petitioner, v. B. CATES, Respondent.
ORDER
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided by Eastern District of California local rules.
On September 21, 2022, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendation which were served on the parties and which contained notice that the parties may file objections within the time specified therein. Timely objections to the findings and recommendations have been filed.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 30 this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the proper analysis. The court writes separately only to address petitioner's objections.
The root of petitioner's claim is that the state trial court wrongfully focused the jury's attention on how much larger petitioner was than his victim at the time of the offense. As the Magistrate Judge explained in his findings and recommendations, and as the California Court of Appeal explained on direct appeal, the trial court's jury instructions did not deprive petitioner of his rights under the United States Constitution. The jury was tasked with deciding whether petitioner put the victim under duress. See People v. Higgs, No. C085090, 2019 WL 494492, at *2 (Cal.Ct.App. Feb. 8, 2019) (unpublished). To do so, state law required the jury to consider “all the circumstances.” Id. (quoting J. Council of Cal., Crim. Jury Instruction No. 1111). The state trial and appellate courts decided a victim's smaller size was one such “circumstance.” See id. This decision was not “contrary to” and did not involve “an unreasonable application of[] clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1).
The Court has considered whether to issue a certificate of appealability under Rule 11(a) of the Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. For the reasons in the Magistrate Judge's findings and recommendations, a certificate of appealability is not warranted in this case.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The findings and recommendations filed September 21, 2022, are adopted in full;
2. Petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus, ECF No. 1, is denied;
3. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability; and
4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment and close this file.