Sanders v. Santoro

Background

Troy C. Sanders filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, the federal procedure that allows a person held under a state-court judgment to challenge custody based on a violation of federal law. A Contra Costa County jury convicted Sanders in 2015 of assault with a firearm, discharging a firearm at an occupied motor vehicle, and three counts of unlawful firearm possession. The trial court also found a firearm-use enhancement and a prior-prison-term allegation true. In 2016, the court sentenced Sanders to 13 years in prison.

The California Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction and judgment on direct review, and the California Supreme Court denied review. Sanders initially filed this federal case without signing the petition. The court dismissed the action without prejudice in 2020, then reopened it in 2023 after Sanders filed a signed petition. The court screened the petition and found three claims that could be considered.

Claims and Analysis

1. Prosecutor’s closing argument. Sanders argued that the prosecutor improperly told the jury it could convict him of assaulting Lawrence Westbrook, even though Count Ten charged assaulting Jashmir Pal. The state appellate court found that the prosecutor had not argued that Sanders could be convicted for assaulting Westbrook. It concluded that the prosecutor referred to Westbrook to respond to the defense theory that Sanders had intended to harm Westbrook rather than Pal, while still arguing that Pal was the victim of the charged assault.

Judge Tigar agreed that the prosecutor’s comments, read in context, did not tell the jury that it could convict Sanders under Count Ten based on an assault against Westbrook. The amended charging document identified Pal as the victim, the charges had been read to the jury, and the prosecutor repeatedly focused on Pal. The court held that the state court’s rejection of this claim was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established United States Supreme Court law. The court therefore denied relief on this claim.

2. Verdict form and unanimity instruction. Sanders argued that the trial court should have amended the verdict form to name Pal as the victim and should have instructed the jury that it had to unanimously agree on the victim of the assault. Judge Tigar held that Sanders had not identified Supreme Court authority requiring a verdict form to name the victim. The court also held that the missing unanimity instruction did not deprive Sanders of a fair trial because Pal was the only person identified as the victim in the charging document, the charge was read to the jury, and the record did not show jury confusion. The court denied relief on both parts of this claim.

3. Instruction on an occupied vehicle. Sanders argued that the jury instruction for discharging a firearm at an occupied motor vehicle omitted the requirement that the vehicle be occupied. The state appellate court agreed that the instruction omitted that element but found the error harmless. Judge Tigar likewise concluded that the state court reasonably determined that the jury necessarily found the vehicle was occupied. The evidence showed that Sanders fired at a vehicle containing someone, and Sanders’s own testimony agreed that the vehicle was occupied, although he disputed the occupant’s identity. The court held that the state court’s decision was not based on an unreasonable determination of the facts or contrary to clearly established federal law, and denied relief on this claim.

Disposition

The court denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus. It also denied a certificate of appealability because Sanders had not made the required substantial showing that his constitutional rights were denied. The clerk was directed to enter judgment in favor of the respondent and close the file.