David L. Sandstrom v. Patrick Covello, Warden

Summary

The United States District Court for the Central District of California accepts and adopts a magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation denying David L. Sandstrom’s federal habeas petition. The court rejects Sandstrom’s objections concerning actual innocence, the CALCRIM 207 timeframe instruction, his alibi defense, juror confusion, and related ineffective-assistance claims. The action is dismissed with prejudice.

Holdings

1. A freestanding actual-innocence claim would fail where the petitioner presents no new evidence establishing innocence.
2. An alleged error in a state court's determination of whether state law authorized a jury instruction cannot, by itself, form the basis for federal habeas relief.
3. CALCRIM 207 did not violate Sandstrom's constitutional right to present an alibi defense because the two-day timeframe did not prevent him from presenting that defense.
4. An alibi is not an affirmative defense that the defendant must prove; it must be considered together with all other evidence, and the evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find Sandstrom guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
5. Counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to CALCRIM 207 or request an alibi instruction where the challenged timeframe instruction was not improper and a reasonable-doubt instruction already gave the jury what it needed to evaluate the alibi theory.
6. In assessing a claim of instructional error, a state or federal court may consider the strength of the evidence supporting the conviction.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Sandstrom had established a freestanding actual-innocence claim warranting habeas relief.
2. Whether the state court's determination that CALCRIM 207 was properly given under state law could support federal habeas relief.
3. Whether CALCRIM 207 violated Sandstrom's constitutional right to present an alibi defense.
4. Whether the prosecution was required to disprove the alibi as an independent affirmative defense.
5. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to CALCRIM 207 or request an alibi instruction under CALCRIM 3400.
6. Whether the state court improperly considered the pretext phone call and the strength of the evidence supporting the conviction.
7. Whether the jury was confused by CALCRIM 207 or was improperly required to consider the alibi as carrying a burden of proof.

Disposition

dismissed