Page ID #:2637

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA RODNEY CARTER, Case No. 8:21-cv-01833-JWH(MAR) Petitioner, v. ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF 14 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE L. MARTINEZ, Respondent.

Page ID #:2638

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, the records on file, and the Final Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. The Court has engaged in de novo review of those portions of the Report to which Petitioner has objected. The Court ACCEPTS the findings and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, generally. The Court recognizes that, in the Petition and the Objections, Petitioner raises arguments based on state law, which were not explicitly addressed in the Final Report and Recommendation. First, Petitioner argues that his second trial violated state double jeopardy principles, specifically as provided for under California Penal Code § 1023 and as implemented under California Penal Code § 1382(a)(2). Dkt. 1 at 29- 30; Dkt. 16 at 3 & 5-6. In addition, Petitioner argues that his trial and appellate counsel were ineffective, in part, for failing to raise in the state courts these state-law double jeopardy arguments. Dkt. 1 at 13, 18; Dkt. 16 at 3 & 6. Finally, Petitioner argues that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the trial court’s misapplication of California Penal Code § 1382(a)(2) in finding that Petitioner was subject to retrial. Dkt. 1 at 14; Dkt. 16 at 3. Nevertheless, these arguments do not entitle Petitioner to federal habeas corpus relief. Petitioner’s argument that his second trial violated state double jeopardy principles is not cognizable on federal habeas review. See Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68 (1991) (federal habeas relief is limited to addressing violations of federal law and does not lie for errors of state law). Although Petitioner’s ineffective assistance of counsel arguments based on the failure to raise state law issues in the state courts are cognizable here, Petitioner has not shown that his second trial violated either California Penal Code § 1023 or § 1382(a)(2), or any other provision of state law. Neither Petitioner’s trial counsel nor his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise in the state courts meritless arguments based on these state law double jeopardy arguments. See Juan H. v. Allen, 408 F.3d 1262, 1273-74 (9th Cir. 2005) (as amended) (“The California Court of Appeal was not objectively unreasonable in 2 of3 Page ID #:2639

1 | holding that the performance of counsel did not fall below an “objective standard of 2 | reasonableness” on account of not raising this meritless objection.’’); see also 3. | Wildman v. Johnson, 261 F.3d 832, 840 Oth Cir. 2001) (“[Petitioner] cannot sustain 4 | his claim for ineffective assistance of appellate counsel because the issues he raises are 5 | without merit.”’). 6 For those reasons, the Court hereby ORDERS that Judgment shall be entered 7 | DISMISSING this action with prejudice. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. | Dated: March 6, 2023 VY

United States Dittrict Judge