LaGrone v. Covello

Background

Mark S. LaGrone sought federal habeas relief, meaning a federal court challenge to a state conviction or sentence, under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. An Alameda County jury found him guilty of two counts of assault with a deadly weapon and found true allegations that he personally inflicted great bodily injury. The jury found him not guilty of two attempted-murder counts. The trial court sentenced him to 19 years in prison; the California Court of Appeal later corrected the sentence to 17 years and affirmed the judgment. The California Supreme Court denied review.

The events involved a fight between teenagers at an apartment. According to the factual background drawn from the state appellate court’s opinion, LaGrone stabbed Jermell in the face after seeing Jermell strike Freddy, a minor. During a later struggle, LaGrone stabbed Jermell several more times and stabbed Wayne in the stomach and arm. At trial, LaGrone claimed that his first assault was justified because he was defending Freddy and that his later assaults were justified self-defense.

Claim

LaGrone challenged the trial court’s use of CALCRIM No. 3472, an instruction stating that a person does not have a right to self-defense if the person provokes a fight intending to create an excuse to use force. The opinion also refers to the challenged instruction as CALCRIM No. 3742. LaGrone argued that there was no evidence he provoked the fight for that purpose and that the instruction prevented the jury from fully and correctly considering his defense of himself and another person.

The California Court of Appeal assumed, for purposes of its analysis, that LaGrone’s version of events was the only reasonable view of the evidence. It nevertheless held that any error was harmless because the instruction correctly stated the law, the jury was told to apply only instructions supported by its factual findings, and the jury was presumed to follow those directions.

Federal habeas standard

Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, a federal court generally may not grant relief on a claim decided on the merits by a state court unless the state 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. A petitioner also must show that the alleged constitutional error had a substantial and harmful effect on the jury’s verdict.

Because the California Supreme Court issued only a summary denial, the district court reviewed the California Court of Appeal’s decision as the last state decision that gave reasons for rejecting the claim.

Court’s analysis

The district court concluded that LaGrone had not shown that the challenged instruction had a substantial and harmful effect on the verdict. The jury was instructed that it alone decided the facts, that some instructions might not apply, and that the prosecution had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that LaGrone did not act in self-defense or defense of another person.

The court also found sufficient evidence from which the jury could conclude that LaGrone used more force than reasonably necessary to defend Freddy. Before LaGrone used the knife, no one had used a weapon, and the court identified other possible responses, including asking the participants to stop, pulling Freddy away, warning that LaGrone had a knife, or joining the fight with his fists. The court therefore rejected LaGrone’s argument that the prosecution had failed to disprove defense of another person beyond a reasonable doubt.

The district court held that the state court’s decision was not contrary to, and did not unreasonably apply, clearly established federal law. It also held that the state court’s decision was not based on an unreasonable determination of the facts. The court denied federal habeas relief on the instructional-error claim.

Disposition

The court denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus and denied a certificate of appealability. It entered judgment in favor of Patrick Covello and closed the case. Judge Jon S. Tigar signed the order on July 31, 2023.