1 2 3

4

5

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 8 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 WESTERN DIVISION 10 ANTHONY WILLIAM BEESON, ) Case No. 2:22-cv-08067-FMO (DTB) ) 11 ) Petitioner, ) ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, 12 ) ) CONCLUSIONS AND 13 v. ) RECOMMENDATIONS OF ) UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE 14 ) DAVID HOLBROOK, ) JUDGE 15 ) ) 16 Respondent. ) ) 17

18 Pursuant to

, the Court has reviewed the Petition, all the 19 records and files herein, and the Report and Recommendation of the United States 20 Magistrate Judge. Objections to the Report and Recommendation have been filed 21 herein. Having made a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and 22 Recommendation to which objections have been made, the Court concurs with and 23 accepts the findings, conclusions and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. 24 The Report recommends the denial of the Petition and the dismissal of this 25 action with prejudice. (ECF No. 51.) Petitioner’s objections to the Report (ECF 26 No. 53) do not warrant a change to the Report’s proposed findings or 27 recommendations. 28 1 Petitioner objects that the prosecutor suppressed evidence that was favorable 2 to the defense in violation of Brady v. Maryland,

(1963). (ECF No. 53 3 at 2-14.) The allegedly favorable evidence consisted of photographs from 4 Petitioner’s own cell phone showing hickeys on Petitioner’s neck, which allegedly 5 would have demonstrated a consensual sexual encounter rather than a sexual 6 assault. (Id. at 3.) The California Court of Appeal’s denial of this claim was not 7 objectively unreasonable. (ECF No. 39-16 at 31-33.) Because Petitioner was 8 aware of this evidence from his own cell phone, it could not have been suppressed 9 in violation of Brady. See Raley v. Ylst,

(9th Cir. 2006) 10 (“[W]here the defendant is aware of the essential facts enabling him to take 11 advantage of any exculpatory evidence, the Government does not commit a Brady 12 violation by not bringing the evidence to the attention of the defense.”) (citations 13 omitted); Bush v. Muniz,

, at *18 (C.D. Cal. July 31, 2020) 14 (“Here, petitioner certainly possessed the salient facts surrounding his cell phone, 15 and could have subpoenaed his own cell phone records.”). 16 Petitioner further objects that the evidence from his cell phone was 17 suppressed in violation of Brady because the defense could not have asked the trial 18 court “to compel discovery based solely on the word of the accused, when the 19 prosecution had indicated they have provided all the discovery.” (ECF No. 53 at 6, 20 21 see also

.) To the contrary, “the word of the accused” would have been 22 sufficient to alert defense counsel to the existence of the evidence, thereby 23 defeating a Brady claim for failure to prove suppression. See Raley,

804 (where “Petitioner possessed the salient facts regarding the existence of the 25 records that he claims were withheld,” then “his counsel could have sought the 26 documents through discovery”). 27 Petitioner objects that his defense counsel was ineffective in violation of 28 Strickland v. Washington,

(1984), for failing to obtain the 1 photographs of the hickeys on Petitioner’s neck from Petitioner’s cell phone. (ECF 2 No. 53 at 14-15.) The California Court of Appeal’s denial of this claim was not 3 objectively unreasonable. (ECF No. 39-16 at 35-36.) Counsel made a reasonable 4 tactical decision to proceed to trial without the cell phone evidence, and there was 5 no reasonable probability that the decision affected the outcome of the trial. The 6 jury heard evidence from other sources about the hickeys: two eyewitnesses 7 testified about discolored marks on Petitioner’s neck that appeared to be hickeys, 8 and a photograph and a diagram of Petitioner’s neck were admitted into evidence. 9 (Id.) 10 IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that Judgment be entered denying the 11 Petition and dismissing this action with prejudice. 12 Dated: April 2, 2025 ___________/s/_________________ 13 FERNANDO M. OLGUIN 14 United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28