Filed: Nov. 15, 2016
Latest Update: Nov. 15, 2016
Summary: ORDER ACCEPTING FINAL FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE MICHAEL W. FITZGERALD , District Judge . Pursuant to Title 28 of the United States Code, section 636, the Court has reviewed the First Amended Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, the records on file, and the Final Report and Recommendation ("Final Report") of the United States Magistrate Judge. The Court has engaged in de novo review of those portions of the Report to which Petitioner and Respondent have
Summary: ORDER ACCEPTING FINAL FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE MICHAEL W. FITZGERALD , District Judge . Pursuant to Title 28 of the United States Code, section 636, the Court has reviewed the First Amended Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, the records on file, and the Final Report and Recommendation ("Final Report") of the United States Magistrate Judge. The Court has engaged in de novo review of those portions of the Report to which Petitioner and Respondent have ..
More
ORDER ACCEPTING FINAL FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
MICHAEL W. FITZGERALD, District Judge.
Pursuant to Title 28 of the United States Code, section 636, the Court has reviewed the First Amended Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, the records on file, and the Final Report and Recommendation ("Final Report") of the United States Magistrate Judge. The Court has engaged in de novo review of those portions of the Report to which Petitioner and Respondent have objected. The Court accepts the final findings and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.
The Magistrate Judge correctly noted the high standard created by AEDPA, relying on Supreme Court cases. (Final Report at 16-17). Nonetheless, the Ninth Circuit has not interpreted AEDPA as making the federal courts a rubber stamp for whatever the California courts choose to do. This Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that Claim One meets the high standard for relief under AEDPA. To explain why, this Court highlights two peculiarities in the California history:
First, the trial was pretty much a trial in name only. It was a bench trial that was really a slow plea. It does not appear that defense counsel had any hope of an acquittal. Given her abject failure to investigate, why would she? Her aim was mitigation.
Second, neither the California Supreme Court nor the Superior Court ever explicitly confronted the arguments presented in Claim One. There was no reasoned decision that denied the California petition. The California Supreme Court issued a summary denial, to which the Magistrate Judge properly showed deference as a decision on the merits. (Final Report at 17-18). The Superior Court mistakenly ruled that the issues in Claim One should have been raised on direct appeal.
IT IS ORDERED that (1) Claim One of the First Amended Petition be CONDITIONALLY GRANTED; (2) Claims Two, Three, and Four of the First Amended Petition be DENIED; and (3) the judgment of conviction be VACATED in People v. Samuel Vanek, Case No. VA108590 of the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
