1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LINDA LIZETT CASTELLANO, Case No. 2:22-cv-01914-SPG (JC)

12 Petitioner, ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND 13 v. RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED

STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14 KATHLEEN ALLISON, 15 Respondent. 16 17 18 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed Petitioner Linda Lizett 19 Castellano’s (“Petitioner”) Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State 20 Custody pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, (ECF No. 1 (“Petition”)), and the record in 21 this case, including the August 26, 2024, Report and Recommendation of the United 22 States Magistrate Judge, (ECF No. 17 (“Report” or “R. & R.”)). The Court has 23 engaged in a de novo review of those portions of the Report to which objections have 24 been made. 25 The Petition raises two grounds for relief. First, Petitioner contends that the 26 California state trial court erred in failing to sua sponte instruct the jury on a lesser 27 included offense. (Pet. at 5). Second, Petitioner seeks relief on the ground that her 28 conviction was supported by insufficient circumstantial evidence. (Id. at 5–6). The 1 Report recommends denial of the Petition and dismissal of this action with prejudice 2 on the grounds that Petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas relief for either claim. 3 (R. & R. at 9, 14). For the following reasons, Petitioner’s objections to the Report, 4 (ECF No. 20 (“Objections”)), do not warrant a change to the Magistrate Judge’s 5 findings or recommendations. 6 Petitioner objects only to the Report’s findings and recommendations 7 regarding second ground for relief. (Objs. at 1). Petitioner, who was convicted of 8 assault with a semiautomatic firearm, argues that the evidence presented at trial was 9 insufficient to support an inference that the gun was loaded. (Id. at 3). Petitioner is 10 “entitled to habeas corpus relief if it is found that upon the record evidence adduced 11 at the trial no rational trier of fact could have found proof of guilt beyond a reasonable 12 doubt.” Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 324 (1979). See also Coleman v. Johnson, 13 566 U.S. 650, 656 (2012) (holding that habeas petitioner entitled to relief only where 14 jury’s factual “finding was so insupportable as to fall below the threshold of bare 15 rationality”). 16 The Report concluded that the California Court of Appeal did not rule 17 unreasonably or contrary to clearly established federal law when it concluded that 18 the evidence in this case was sufficient to permit a reasonable jury to infer that 19 Petitioner’s gun was loaded. (R. & R. at 14). California law permits juries to infer 20 that a “gun was loaded . . . from circumstantial evidence” so long as that inference is 21 “reasonable.” People v. Penunuri, 5 Cal. 5th 126, 147 (2018). Here, based on its 22 review of the evidence presented at trial, the California Court of Appeal concluded 23 that “substantial evidence” supported the jury’s conclusion that Petitioner’s gun was 24 loaded. (ECF No. 10-10 at 14–15). After reviewing the California Court of Appeal’s 25 analysis, much of which is reproduced in the Report, see (R. & R. at 12–13), the 26 Report concluded that this determination was reasonable, (id. at 13). 27 Petitioner objects that, based on the evidence presented at trial, the jury could 28 not have reasonably inferred that her gun was loaded and that the California Court of 1 Appeal’s rejection of her appeal was likewise unreasonable. (Objs. at 4–5). The 2 Court disagrees. As an initial matter, determinations made by “[t]he state court of 3 last review” are “entitled to considerable deference under AEDPA, 28 U.S.C. § 4 2254(d).” Coleman, 566 U.S. at 656. Additionally, on habeas review, courts “view[] 5 the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution.” Jackson, 443 U.S. at 6 319. 7 Under this deferential standard of review, the Court agrees with the Report and 8 the California Court of Appeals’ determinations that the evidence presented at trial 9 was sufficient to permit the jury to reasonably infer that Petitioner’s gun was loaded. 10 In this case, the prosecution presented evidence that Petitioner, a soldier of the 11 Tepa 13 gang, drove into the territory of Lennox 13, a rival gang, rolled down her 12 window, and pointed a gun at the victim while declaring Petitioner’s gang affiliation 13 and cursing Lennox 13. (R. & R. at 12). At trial, the prosecution’s gang expert 14 testified that, when gang members enter rival territory, they typically do so “to put in 15 work to commit crimes,” including murder. (Id. at 13; ECF No. 10-10 at 5–7). The 16 gang expert also testified that a threat of the kind Petitioner made, which occurred in 17 the open and during the daytime, signaled disrespect to the rival gang. (R. & R. 18 at 13). Furthermore, the expert testified that Tepa 13 and Lennox 13 were feuding 19 archrivals whose members “shoot at each other all the time.” (Id.) 20 The Report correctly concluded that this evidence permits a reasonable 21 inference that Petitioner’s gun was loaded “that is supported by a chain of logic,” not 22 “mere speculation dressed up in the guise of evidence.” Juan H. v. Allen, 408 F.3d 23 1262, 1277 (9th Cir. 2005). As the Court of Appeals reasoned, the jury could 24 reasonably have concluded Petitioner would not have entered rival territory and 25 confronted the victim in a manner that disrespected the rival gang without a loaded 26 gun, because she would have “needed to be prepared to respond to a possible violent 27 response.” (ECF No. 10-10 at 15). 28 1 Petitioner has failed to show that the jury’s verdict was “so insupportable as to 2 || fall below the threshold of bare rationality.” Coleman, 566 U.S. at 656. The Court 3 || thus approves and accepts the Report. 4 CONCLUSION 5 Petitioner’s objections are overruled. It is ordered that the Report and 6 || Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is accepted and adopted, the Petition is 7 || denied, and this action is dismissed with prejudice. 8 It is further ordered that the Clerk serve copies of this Order, the Report, and 9 || the Judgment herein on counsel for Petitioner and Respondent. 10 Let judgment be entered accordingly. 11 12 || DATED: December 19, 2024 13 Z Z 14

HON, SHERI PEACE GARNETT

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28