Opinion
Case No. 2:20-cv-03267-JLS (AFM)
03-22-2021
MICHAEL PARKS, Petitioner, v. PATRICK EATON, Warden, Respondent.
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition, records on file and the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge ("Report"). Further, the Court has engaged in a de novo review of those portions of the Report to which objections have been made.
Petitioner's objections are overruled. With the exception of the following, Petitioner's objections do not warrant discussion as they are properly addressed in the Report.
Petitioner complains that the Report fails to address his allegation that the trial court did not obtain a written waiver of his right to be present at his trial as required by California law. (ECF No. 20 at 1-2.) To begin with, Petitioner's assertion is factually incorrect. The Report addressed his contention, noting that his allegations did not raise a question about the federal constitutional validity of his waiver, but rather boiled down to a procedural argument challenging the trial court's failure to obtain a formal waiver. (ECF No. 18 at 17-18.) Furthermore, Petitioner's objection relies upon an alleged violation of section 977 of the California Penal Code. Federal habeas corpus relief, however, is available only when a petitioner has been convicted or sentenced in violation of the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. It is not available for errors in the interpretation or application of state law. Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. 216, 219 (2011); Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68 (1991). A violation of California's rule regarding a written waiver is not grounds for federal relief. Thus, even assuming the trial court erred by failing to properly apply the California statute, this would not alter the conclusion that the state court's determination of Petitioner's claim was neither an unreasonable application of federal law nor an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the record.
IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that Judgment shall be entered denying the Petition and dismissing the action with prejudice. DATED: March 22, 2021
/s/_________
JOSEPHINE L. STATON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE