Castro v. Dowling

CHRISTIAN CASTRO, Petitioner, v. JANET DOWLING, Warden, Respondent.

No. CIV-17-1238-G

United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma

August 19, 2021

ORDER

CHARLES B. GOODWIN United States District Judge

Petitioner Christian Castro, a state prisoner appearing pro se, has petitioned this Court for a writ of habeas corpus challenging through 28 U.S.C. § 2254 the constitutionality of his criminal conviction by the State of Oklahoma. See Pet. (Doc. No. 1). Respondent, Warden Janet Dowling, has filed an Answer to the Petition, as well as the state-court record. See Answer (Doc. No. 12); Original Record (“OR, ” Doc. No. 14) (conventionally filed). For the reasons outlined below, the Court finds that the Petition should be denied.

I. RELEVANT CASE HISTORY

The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (“OCCA”) made the following factual findings regarding Petitioner's crimes, which the Court presumes are correct, as Petitioner has not presented clear and convincing evidence otherwise. Lockett v. Trammell, 711 F.3d 1218, 1222 (10th Cir. 2013) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1)).

[Daryl] Davis, [Christian] Castro, [Nelson] Williams and Carl Bennett all worked at Mathis Brothers furniture store. Two days before the murder, January 21, 2012, Castro, Bennett and Davis went to a strip club. During the evening, Castro and Davis left the club to go to Davis' house for more money.

When they returned, Castro, Davis and Bennett went to the VIP Room. This room had a $200 cover charge, plus separate charges for private dancers. Bennett said he couldn't afford it, and Castro and Davis offered to pay what Bennett believed would be a reduced-price cover charge. When the club closed, Bennett could not pay his $200 tab for a dancer; he was arrested for public drunkenness and taken to jail. Castro found Williams and borrowed $100 for bail money for Bennett. Bennett testified that, while they were at the club, Castro and Davis went to Davis' house to get money because Castro was broke. Bennett testified that Davis said he was hoping Castro would pay him back because he needed the money for rent.

Castro kept a Jimenez .9mm pistol in his car, and on the day of the murder, he and Williams went to buy Williams a Hi-Point .9mm pistol. Castro showed Williams how it worked and gave him some ammunition. At approximately 8:00 p.m. the two went to Mathis Brothers. Williams testified Castro stated that it was either Davis or him, and said, “I've got to get him out of the game.” Castro also said he owed Davis money, and Davis wanted it paid. They did not see Bennett but saw Davis in the parking lot. Castro drove Davis to his car, and the two talked for a few minutes. Williams heard Davis say “500 or 250, ” and Castro tell Davis that someone was bringing him the money he owed Davis. Davis and Castro street-raced, then pulled into a residential neighborhood where Castro said he was meeting his friend with the money. Castro borrowed Williams' phone and returned it; they moved the cars around the corner; Williams dropped and broke his phone; the three men looked on the ground for the battery. As Davis knelt by Castro's car, Williams saw Castro, with his hand in his pocket, glare at Davis. When Davis went to turn on his own car's headlights, Castro followed, and shot him fatally in the back of the head. The bullet fragment recovered from Davis' head had a right twist; Castro's Jimenez pistol had a right twist, while Williams' Hi-Point had a left twist.

Castro jumped into his car and threw his gun on the passenger floorboard. As he and Williams left, Williams heard Castro say, “I did it, I did it.” [Trial Tr. I 171] When Williams picked up Castro's gun, the barrel was hot. [Trial Tr. I 172, 177] Watching news footage, Castro said, “I did it, man, I did it. I'm an OG.” [Trial Tr. I 177] Castro demonstrated to Williams how he shot Davis in the back of the head. At Williams' house, Williams gave Castro back his gun, and Williams put his own Hi-Point in a metal box safe in his attic; Williams admitted to police that both guns might be in the safe, and police found them both there the next day. The morning after the murder Castro told Williams, “We're the new hit men in Oklahoma, we're the new hit men, big dog.” [Trial Tr. I 178] When they went to work they were interviewed by police, then taken to the police station. After the second interview Williams showed detectives the safe with the guns. [Trial Tr. I 185, II 358, StEx40, 45-46]

Castro vigorously denied shooting Davis. He testified that, while Davis followed him, Williams told him to pull over in a neighborhood. The men talked, moved the cars, and talked some more, before Castro got a phone call (on his own phone). After Castro ended the call, he heard Williams shoot Davis. He said Williams ran to him, yelling “Let's go”, and as they drove away Williams said he shot Davis. At Williams' house, Castro said, Williams brought both guns in and put them on the bed. Castro said he left his gun on Williams' bed and went home. Castro admitted his gun was in his car before the shooting; he said that Williams took his gun when they got out of the car before Davis was shot. Castro testified that, the night before the shooting, he and Davis had gone to the strip club with Bennett, and that he went home with Davis so Davis himself could get more money. Castro denied borrowing any money from Davis.

Williams was originally charged as a co-defendant with Castro. After Williams[] testified for the State at preliminary hearing, his charge was amended to accessory after the fact. At Castro's trial Williams admitted that his charge had been reduced, allowing him to bond out of jail, but testified that he had no deal with prosecutors for his testimony. He said he hoped for a good outcome in his case, and hoped he'd get probation as a result of his testimony. [Trial Tr. I 139-40, II 278] After the trial Williams pled guilty and received an 8-year suspended sentence.

OCCA Op. (Doc. No. 12-6) at 1-4 (first three alterations and ninth alteration added).^[1]

Following a jury trial in the District Court of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, Petitioner was convicted of murder in the first degree. See Pet. at 1-2; OCCA Op. at 1; OR 317 (Verdict, State v. Castro, No. CF-2012-646 (Okla. Cnty. Dist. Ct. Mar. 31, 2014)). On May 2, 2014, Petitioner was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. See Pet. at 1; OCCA Op. at 1; OR 334-39 (J. & Sentence, State v. Castro, No. CF-2012-646 (Okla. Cnty. Dist. Ct. May 2, 2014)).

Petitioner appealed his conviction and sentence to the OCCA. See Castro v. State, No. F-2014-411 (Okla. Crim. App.). The OCCA affirmed Petitioner's conviction and sentence on November 6, 2015. See OCCA Op. at 1, 14. On December 5, 2016, Petitioner filed an Application for Postconviction Relief, which the trial court denied on August 8, 2017. See Pet'r's Postconviction Appl. (Doc. No. 12-7); Trial Ct. Postconviction Order (Doc. No. 12-9). Petitioner appealed this disposition to the OCCA, and on November 3, 2017, the OCCA affirmed. See OCCA Postconviction Order (Doc. No. 12-11).

Petitioner then filed the instant habeas action, raising five grounds for relief. See Pet. at 8-29. Respondent concedes, and the record likewise reflects, that the Petition was timely filed. See Pet. at 1, 4; Answer at 2; 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).

II. DISCUSSION

A. Ground One: Trial Court Error

1. Failure to Instruct That Nelson Williams Was an Accomplice as a Matter of Law

In Ground One, Petitioner first argues that the trial court violated his due process rights by failing to instruct the jury that Nelson Williams was an accomplice as a matter of law and that Mr. Williams' testimony therefore required corroboration. See Pet. at 8-11. Petitioner contends that Mr. Williams was an accomplice as a matter of law because Mr. Williams was initially also charged with first-degree murder as a co-defendant, and Oklahoma law generally prescribes that “[a] witness is an accomplice to the crime at trial if the witness could be charged with the same offense.” Postelle v. State, 267 P.3d 114, 126 (Okla. Crim. App. 2011); see Pet. at 9.

Petitioner raised this argument on direct appeal, and the OCCA denied relief. In rejecting Petitioner's challenge, the OCCA noted that trial courts are obligated to instruct jurors that a witness is an accomplice as a matter of law only if the evidence establishing that the witness is an accomplice is uncontroverted. See OCCA Op. at 10-11 (citing Postelle). The OCCA found that the evidence on the accomplice question was conflicting, pointing specifically to Petitioner and Mr. Williams' differing testimony regarding who shot Daryl Davis and to the forensic evidence establishing that the bullet used to kill Mr. Davis was consistent with Petitioner's gun. See id. at 11-12 (finding no plain error in the trial court's instruction determination).

Where, as here, a federal habeas claim has been adjudicated on the merits by the state courts, a deferential standard of review applies:

Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), we must apply a highly deferential standard in § 2254 proceedings, one that demands that state-court decisions be given the benefit of the doubt. If a claim has been “adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings, ” we may not grant relief under § 2254 unless the state-court decision “was contrary to or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States” or “was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), (2). The phrase “clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States, ” id. §

...