Gonzalez v. Jamison

1

Garron Gonzalez, Petitioner, v. J. L. Jamison, Warden of FCI Otisville, and Drew Wrigley, Attorney General, State of North Dakota, Respondents.

No. 1:23-cv-104

United States District Court, D. North Dakota

May 13, 2024

ORDER DENYING HABEAS RELIEF

CLARE R. HOCHHALTER, MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Before the Court is the Petition and Amended Petition (“Petition”) under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for writ of habeas corpus by a person in state custody filed by Petitioner, Garron Gonzalez.^[1] (Doc. Nos. 1, 7). Respondents, J L. Jamison, Warden, and Drew Wrigley, Attorney General (“State”), filed an answer seeking dismissal of the Petition. (Doc. No. 9). The parties have consented to the exercise of jurisdiction by the magistrate judge. (Doc. Nos 4, 13). The Court requested Gonzalez to submit a response to the State's arguments for dismissal, which he did on April 1, 2024. (Doc. No. 15). The matter is now ripe for review.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Criminal Proceedings

Gonzalez pleaded guilty in state court to two counts of gross sexual imposition of a juvenile female, under the age of 15, on January 13, 2004. (Doc. No. 9-6 at 3-4).

On August 22, 2003, at 10:30 p.m., Gonzalez saw the victim, L.G., at Wal-Mart, where he worked.^[2] Id. at 5. Gonzalez knew L.G. through mutual friends. Gonzalez asked if he could come to her house on his break, which he thought would be around midnight on August 23. Id. Gonzalez arrived at L.G.'s home at about 12:10 a.m. on August 23, 2003, and while he was there L.G. performed oral sex on him. Id. Before returning to work, Gonzalez said he wanted to come back after his shift. Gonzalez did so, arriving between 6:45 and 7:00 a.m. on August 23, and again L.G. performed oral sex on him. Id. L.G. was 14 years old at the time. At the plea hearing, Gonzalez and his defense counsel agreed to these facts with a caveat. Id. Counsel explained to the court that a private investigator interviewed L.G., and “[s]he basically indicated she was angry at [Gonzalez] because he had slighted a friend of hers, and she was going to set him up, that this was her doing.” Id. at 6. When the court began to question counsel about the alleged “set up,” Gonzalez's attorney responded, “he's a big boy and he should have known better.” Id.

Gonzalez's guilty plea was accepted by the court as freely and voluntarily given and supported by a factual basis. Id. The maximum punishment on each count was 20 years in prison. Pursuant to a favorable plea recommendation by the State, Gonzalez was sentenced to five years on each count to be served concurrently with all but 130 days suspended, credit for time served of 130 days, and five years of supervised probation. (Doc. No. 9-7 at 2, 6; Doc. No. 9-8). No appeal was taken.

Gonzalez had trouble abiding the terms of his supervised probation and his probation was revoked on several occasions.^[3] He was resentenced more harshly on each revocation. (Doc. Nos. 9-9, 9-11, 9-13, 9-14, 9-16, 9-18; see also Doc. No. 9 at 2-10 (explaining the procedural history)). On February 9, 2011, he was resentenced to 20 years on each count to be served consecutively. (Doc. No. 9-18). The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the amended sentence on appeal. North Dakota v. Gonzalez, 799 N.W.2d 402 (N.D. 2011). Gonzalez has since challenged his sentence and conviction through multiple post-conviction relief applications and appeals in state court, some of which have been successful.^[4] (See generally Doc. No. 9 at 3-10).

B. Seventh Post-Conviction Relief Application

The procedural history relevant to the Petition begins with a state post-conviction relief application alleging newly discovered evidence filed in February 2018. (Doc. No. 7 at 3; Doc. No. 9-99). This was Gonzalez's seventh application for relief. (Doc. No. 9-101 at 4). In the application, Gonzalez alleged the State failed to disclose several pieces of evidence to him during the prosecution, including a report by K.V., a friend of L.G., alleging gross sexual imposition, the results of L.G.'s physical examination, and the results of DNA testing. (Doc. No. 9-99 at 1-2). Gonzalez also claimed the officer testifying during his preliminary hearing gave false testimony that the results of the DNA testing had not been received. Id. at 2. The court summarily denied the application based on the State's request before Gonzalez had an opportunity to respond and before Gonzalez's motion for appointment of counsel was granted. (Doc. No. 9-101). The court relied on a state statute for misuse of process and concluded the issues raised by Gonzalez in the seventh application could have been raised in one of his previous requests for post-conviction relief.^[5] Id. at 4.

Shortly thereafter, Gonzalez was appointed counsel to represent him. (Doc. No. 102). Gonzalez's attorney requested the court to reconsider the summary denial, requested leave to conduct discovery, and appealed to the North Dakota Supreme Court.^[6] (Doc. Nos. 9-103, 9-104, 9-105, 9-107). To the district court, Gonzalez's attorney argued he should be allowed to present the newly discovered DNA analysis because the results were not available at the time of the preliminary hearing and were not disclosed to Gonzalez prior to his guilty plea. (Doc. No. 9-104, ¶ 8). Gonzalez's attorney argued the DNA results would have been material to both the probable cause determination and Gonzalez's decision to plead guilty. (Doc. No. 9-104, ¶ 8). Counsel asserted the newly discovered evidence, potential perjury by a state witness at the preliminary hearing, Brady violations, and denial of due process all warranted reconsideration of the postconviction relief application on its merits. Id. ¶ 10.

The state court denied the motion to reconsider and the motion to conduct discovery. (Doc. 9-109). Irrespective of the DNA analysis, the court concluded the evidence supporting the probable cause determination was overwhelming based on the investigating detective's testimony. Id. ¶ 12. The detective testified L.G. had provided him a statement describing the sexual conduct and Gonzalez had admitted he engaged in sexual activity with her to a private investigator. Id. ¶¶ 12, 23. Based on this testimony, the court found that the alleged newly discovered evidence would not have impacted the finding of probable cause. Id. ¶ 28. The court reviewed the extensive history of Gonzalez's post-conviction relief applications and again found that Gonzalez had prior opportunities to bring those issues forward but chose not to do so. Id. ¶¶ 14-22, 24, 29. The court concluded Gonzalez had not shown circumstances warranting setting aside the prior order denying the seventh application. Id. ¶¶ 30, 35-36.

On appeal, Gonzalez argued the district court abused its discretion by summarily denying his seventh application and denying the motion for reconsideration. (Doc. No. 112). The North Dakota Supreme Court held the summary denial was erroneous, but the crux of the issue was whether Gonzalez had been prejudiced by the error. See Gonzalez v. North Dakota, 923 N.W.2d 143, 144 (N.D. 2019). Because the district court had not addressed whether the newly discovered evidence would have impacted Gonzalez's decision to plead guilty, the court remanded the case to determine whether the DNA analysis would have been material to Gonzalez's decision. Id. at 148-49.

On remand, Gonzalez was appointed counsel, and the court held an evidentiary hearing on January 14, 2020. (Doc. Nos. 9-115, 9-116; 9-117). Gonzalez, his former criminal defense attorney, and a legal assistant from the prosecutor's office testified. (Doc. No. 9-117 at 9-40; Doc. No. 9-120, ¶¶ 20, 29). During the hearing, the State objected to categorizing the report as a DNA analysis and clarified that the tests were preliminary biological screenings. (Doc. No. 9117 at 12-13). The screening report indicated “no spermatozoa observed, but epithelial cells are present;” in other words, the tested material showed “positive results for the enzyme found in semen, even though no sperm was present.” Id. at 13. Counsel for Gonzalez agreed to that clarification, and the court ruled the document was a screening document, not a DNA analysis. Id.

The legal assistant testified to the prosecutor's process for sending discovery to defense counsel at the time of Gonzalez's prosecution. (Doc. No. 9-117 at 26-27). She further explained that if a defendant pleaded guilty prior to receiving the state lab's full analysis of DNA testing, the lab would be notified that the results were not needed. Id. at 27. Gonzalez's former defense counsel testified he had very little independent recollection of the case and his old criminal defense files were destroyed when he left his private law practice in 2009. Id. at 30-31. He testified that his process, without exception, was to send all discovery documents to his clients. Id. at 31. So, whatever he received from the State's attorney's office would be copied and forwarded to the client. Id. Defense counsel further recalled that Gonzalez did not dispute he had engaged in sexual acts with L.G., only her motivation had been an issue. Id. at 32-33.

Gonzalez testified that he received the screening report sometime in 2016 in response to an open records request he made on February 23, 2016. Id. at 15. He denied having reviewed the report prior to changing his plea. Gonzalez testified that no-one explained to him what the report meant for his case. Id. He asserted the report would have affected his decision because “[f]rom what I saw it didn't have anything to with me.” Id. at 15-16.

The court again denied Gonzalez's seventh application. (Doc. No. 9-120). Based on the evidence presented at the hearing, the court concluded the screening report was not newly discovered, finding:

[T]here is nothing

...