1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11

SEAN EZRA BROWN, ) NO. CV 16-2935-ODW (AGR)

) 12 Petitioner, ) ) 13 v. ) ) ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS 14 JOE A. LIZARRAGA, Warden, ) AND RECOMMENDATION OF ) MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 Respondent. ) ) 16 ) ) 17 18 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition, the other 19 records on file herein, the Report and Recommendation of the United States 20 Magistrate Judge (“Report”) and the Objections. Further, the Court has engaged 21 in a de novo review of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to 22 which objections have been made. The Court accepts the findings and 23 recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. 24 Petitioner alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel in Ground Three. 25 In Subclaim 8, Petitioner alleged trial counsel was deficient for failing to convey a 26 plea offer. Petitioner’s objections state that the prosecutor made an oral plea 27 offer before Petitioner was brought into the courtroom on September 25, 2012. 28 (Obj. at 17-18.) The plea offer would then have occurred before consolidation of 1 the two criminal cases against Petitioner, Case No. NA091389 and Case No. 2 NA093449, by order dated January 16, 2013. (Clerk’s Transcript, Dkt. No. 38-1 3 at 131-32.) Petitioner does not state in which case the plea offer was made. 4 The Report explained that, even assuming the existence of a plea offer and 5 deficiency by counsel, Petitioner had not shown prejudice because he had not 6 alleged “a reasonable probability [he] would have accepted the earlier plea offer 7 had [he] been afforded effective assistance of counsel.” Report at 34; Lafler v. 8 Cooper, 566 U.S. 156, 164 (2012); Missouri v. Frye, 566 U.S. 134, 147 (2012). 9 Petitioner still has not made the requisite allegations. His objections state only 10 that he “would have at least considered a plea offer.” (Obj. at 18.) Petitioner also 11 makes no showing that the prosecution would not have withdrawn the plea offer 12 in light of intervening circumstances (such as the second criminal case) or that 13 the court would have accepted its terms. Report at 34; Lafler, 566 U.S. at 164; 14 Missouri, 566 U.S. at 147. 15 Petitioner's remaining objections are without merit. 16 IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that judgment be entered denying the 17 Petition and dismissing this action with prejudice. 18 Ne. 19|| DATED: September 16, 2019 Ee

20 United States Didtricl Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28