ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

STEPHEN V. WILSON, District 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 ("R&R"). Further, the Court has engaged in a de novo review of those portions of the Report to which objections have been made.

The Court accepts the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge, and Petitioner's objections are overruled. Except as discussed below, the objections do not warrant discussion as they are properly addressed in the R&R.

Petitioner alleges that after sentencing, and on its own motion, the trial court reduced his conviction from first-degree murder to second-degree murder. The record confirms Petitioner's contention. (See Clerk's Transcript ("CT") 838-839; Reporter's Transcript on Appeal ("RT") 4501-4502.) As Respondent concedes, despite reducing Petitioner's conviction to second-degree murder, the trial court did not reduce Petitioner's sentence. Petitioner remains subject to a sentence calculated on the basis of the penalty for first-degree murder. (See RT 4262-4265, 4501-4502; CT 801-805, 840; ECF No. 22 at 5, 7.)

Nevertheless, this potential error does not alter the analysis of any of the claims presented by Petitioner in this case. The Petition does not raise a claim based upon the trial court's alleged sentencing error (see ECF No. 1),1 and the alleged error has no bearing on any of the claims that are presented in the Petition. The only claim to which Petitioner's allegations are arguably relevant is his challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the jury's finding that the murder was premeditated. As discussed in the R&R, however, the state court's determination that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's finding that the murder was willful, deliberate, and premeditated was neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, federal law. (See ECF No. 15 at 10-13; see CT 516.) As Respondent points out, the trial court reduced the offense to second-degree murder due to a deficiency in the verdict form, not because it determined that the evidence was insufficient to support first-degree murder. (See RT 4501-4502.) Nothing about the trial court's post-verdict reduction of the conviction to second-degree murder undermines that conclusion.

IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that (1) the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is accepted and adopted; and (2) Judgment shall be entered denying the Petition and dismissing the action with prejudice.