Khan v. Pollard

Background

Mohammed Z. Khan filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his state-court convictions. The opinion states that Khan represented himself. In 2016, an Alameda County Superior Court jury convicted him of first-degree murder, attempted voluntary manslaughter, and cultivation of marijuana. He received a sentence of 31 years to life in state prison. The California Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, and the California Supreme Court denied review.

The case arose from the beating and death of Francisco Lopez and the attempted killing of his brother, Fernando Lopez, after the brothers went to rob a marijuana-growing house. The opinion states that Khan oversaw operations at the house, arrived after being told about the break-in, participated in beating and binding the brothers, and later continued beating Francisco. Francisco was eventually left beside a road and died from multiple blunt-force injuries.

Claims and Legal Standards

Khan raised three claims: (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his attempted-voluntary-manslaughter conviction; (2) the evidence was insufficient to support his first-degree-murder conviction; and (3) the trial court improperly instructed the jury under California Criminal Jury Instructions No. 540 about aiding and abetting felony murder based on kidnapping.

Under the federal habeas statute, a federal court may grant relief from a state conviction only when the state court’s decision was contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established United States Supreme Court law, or was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts. For an insufficient-evidence claim, the question was whether, viewing the evidence favorably to the prosecution, any rational jury could have found the required elements beyond a reasonable doubt.

Attempted-Voluntary-Manslaughter Claim

The court denied relief on the first claim. It relied on evidence that Khan was in command of the operation, began beating the brothers when he arrived, helped bind them, pursued Fernando after he escaped, threatened the brothers, held Fernando while directing him toward a vehicle, and later continued beating Francisco.

The court concluded that this evidence was sufficient for a jury to find that Khan intended to kill Fernando and desired his death. It held that the California Court of Appeal’s rejection of the claim was neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of federal law.

First-Degree-Murder Claim

The court also denied relief on the second claim. The California Court of Appeal had determined that the evidence supported finding Khan guilty of kidnapping as either the direct perpetrator or an aider and abettor. The federal court agreed that the testimony showed Khan beat Francisco, helped bind him, led the brothers outside, drove the vehicle, and continued beating Francisco at his home.

The court held that the evidence was sufficient for the jury to find kidnapping beyond a reasonable doubt. It further held that the kidnapping and the homicide were part of one continuous transaction, making felony-murder liability possible under the state-law theory involved. The court therefore concluded that the state court’s decision was neither an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent nor an unreasonable determination of the facts.

Jury-Instruction Claim

Khan challenged the instruction stating that a defendant must have intended to commit or aided and abetted the kidnapping before or at the time a perpetrator caused the death. He argued that the word “before” conflicted with two California decisions.

The court explained that a claim based only on an error of state law is not grounds for federal habeas relief. A jury instruction can support federal relief only if it so infected the entire trial that the conviction violated due process and the error had a substantial and harmful effect on the verdict. The court held that the instruction was proper under California law because felony-murder liability could apply to people involved in the criminal plan before or during the killing. It also noted the evidence showing Khan’s involvement through nearly the end of the events. The court found no basis for federal relief on this claim.

Disposition

Judge William Alsup denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The court also denied a certificate of appealability because it found that reasonable jurists would not debate whether the court’s assessment of the constitutional claims was wrong. The clerk was ordered to close the file.