Jones v. Neuschmid

ROY JONES, Petitioner, v. ROBERT NEUSCHMID, Warden, Respondent.

Case No. 18-01738 EJD (PR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

March 18, 2021

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS; DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY; DIRECTIONS TO CLERK

Petitioner filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his state conviction ("Petition"). Dkt. No. 11. The Court stayed this action so that Petitioner could exhaust his claims in state court. Dkt. No. 26. After Petitioner moved to reopen this action, the Court screened the Petition and concluded that the Petition stated cognizable claims which merited an answer from Respondent. Dkt. No. 29.

Respondent filed an answer on the merits ("Answer"), Dkt. Nos. 33 and 33-1, and Petitioner filed a traverse ("Traverse"), Dkt. No. 36, followed by four supplements to the traverse, Dkt. Nos. 40-43. Upon the Court's request, Respondent filed a supplemental answer ("Supplemental Answer"), Dkt. No. 44, and Petitioner filed a supplemental traverse ("Supplemental Traverse"), Dkt. No. 45. Petitioner subsequently filed motions to submit new evidence. See Dkt. Nos. 48, 51, 53, 54.

For the reasons set forth below, the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED.

I. BACKGROUND

On July 29, 2015, Petitioner was found guilty by a jury in Alameda County Superior Court ("trial court") of torture, kidnapping, kidnapping for ransom, false imprisonment of a hostage, and multiple counts of false imprisonment, corporal injury, assault with a deadly weapon, and child abuse. The jury also found that Petitioner used a deadly and dangerous weapon, inflicted great bodily injury on his victim, and inflicted great bodily injury on his victim under circumstances involving domestic violence. Ans., Ex. A ("Clerk's Transcript") at 496-98, 500-12.

On January 31, 2017, the California Court of Appeal ("state appellate court") affirmed the judgment in a reasoned opinion. Ans., Ex. F. The California Supreme Court summarily denied a petition for direct review on August 12, 2017. Ans., Ex. G. The California Supreme Court summarily denied Petitioner's state-court habeas petition on January 2, 2019. Ans., Ex. H.

The Court received the Petition on April 11, 2018. Pet.

II. STATEMENT OF FACTS

The following facts are taken from the opinion of the state appellate court:

The charges arose out of defendant's kidnapping, imprisonment, and torture of Alexandria. The couple met in 1996, and had five children together. On January 14, 2015, the two were no longer in a relationship, and their children were visiting defendant. That night, defendant called Alexandria and asked if she could hold a light while he changed a circuit on his car. Alexandria grew tired of holding the light after about two hours, and defendant told her they could get someone else who could help. They then picked up someone Alexandria referred to only as "crack head." The three returned to defendant's house, and Alexandria waited near the front of the garage while defendant went to open the door from the inside. Defendant opened the garage door and said "grab her." "Crack head" placed Alexandria in a chokehold and dragged her through the garage and into the basement.

As Alexandria was dragged through the garage, defendant hit her all over her body. Once in the basement, Alexandria tried torun out the door, but defendant hit her in the head with a hammer. Defendant then accused Alexandria of stealing from him. He instructed her to take off all her clothes, get on her stomach, and crawl to him "like the snake that you are." As Alexandria crawled, defendant cursed at her, and accused her of taking their kids to a shelter and stealing things. Defendant hit Alexandria with a hammer on the back of her left knee. Alexandria tried to run out the door and defendant again hit her in the head with the hammer. Alexandria passed out, and the next thing she remembered was waking up in a bathtub the following morning. She apparently passed out again, and woke up naked in a bedroom.

Defendant kept Alexandria in the bedroom for several days and repeatedly asked her where his pills and money were. Alexandria said she didn't know what he was talking about. Defendant did not believe her and hit her with the hammer and a stick on her knees, shins, feet, and arms. Defendant put boiling hot compresses on Alexandria's eyes, stating he thought it would take the bruising and swelling away. Defendant also put pain medication in Alexandria's mouth, and directed her to swallow it. The pills made Alexandria fall asleep.

When defendant would ask Alexandria where she put his things, she would make something up to avoid getting hit with the hammer. Alexandria heard defendant instruct their children to take a taxi to her house in Berkeley and search it. Alexandria later heard defendant talking to their kids on the phone and telling them to bring back a bag in which she kept all of her paperwork, including the pink slip to her car. Later, defendant made Alexandria write a note stating she was going to sell the car to him.

On January 24, 2015, the 10th day of her captivity, Alexandria was able to contact the police. She communicated with one of her sons, who was also in defendant's house, while defendant was on the phone. She told the son to place his phone in the bathroom. Alexandria then went into the bathroom and used the phone to call 911. The police arrived at defendant's house just after 11:00 p.m. that night. A standoff ensued as the police unsuccessfully tried to get the residents out using a PA system. In the early morning, after about six hours, the SWAT team breached the front door. When the police entered the living room, they found defendant holding an infant in front of him. An officer opined defendant was using the child as a human shield. The police grabbed the child and arrested defendant.

People v. Jones, No. A146095, 2017 WL 412629, at *1-2 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 31, 2017) (unpublished); see also Ans., Ex. F.

III. DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

This Court may entertain a petition for a writ of habeas corpus "in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); Rose v. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). The writ may not be granted with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in state court unless the state court's adjudication of the claim: "(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or (2) resulted in a decision that 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).

"Under the 'contrary to' clause, a federal habeas court may grant the writ if the state court arrives at a conclusion opposite to that reached by [the Supreme] Court on a question of law or if the state court decides a case differently than [the] Court has on a set of materially indistinguishable facts." Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 412-13 (2000). The only definitive source of clearly established federal law under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) is the holdings (as opposed to the dicta) of the Supreme Court as of the time of the state court decision. Williams, 529 U.S. at 412; Brewer v. Hall, 378 F.3d 952, 955 (9th Cir. 2004). While circuit law may be "persuasive authority" for purposes of determining whether a state court decision is an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent, only the Supreme Court's holdings are binding on the state courts and only those holdings need be "reasonably" applied. Clark v. Murphy, 331 F.3d 1062, 1069 (9th Cir.), overruled on other grounds by Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63 (2003).

"Under the 'unreasonable application' clause, a federal habeas court may grant the writ if the state court identifies the correct governing legal principle from [the Supreme Court's] decisions but unreasonably applies that principle to the facts of the prisoner'scase." Williams, 529 U.S. at 413. "Under § 2254(d)(1)'s 'unreasonable application' clause, . . . a federal habeas court may not issue the writ simply because that court concludes in its independent judgment that the relevant state-court decision applied clearly established federal law erroneously or incorrectly." Id. at 411. A federal habeas court making the "unreasonable application" inquiry should ask whether the state court's application of clearly established federal law was "objectively unreasonable." Id. at 409. The federal habeas court must presume correct any determination of a factual issue made by a state court unless the petitioner rebuts the presumption of correctness by clear and convincing evidence. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1).

Here, as noted above, the California Supreme Court summarily denied Petitioner's petitions for review. See supra at 2; Ans., Exs. G, H. The state appellate court, on direct review, addressed three of the claims raised in the instant petition. Ans., Ex. F. The state appellate court thus was the highest court to have reviewed those three claims in a reasoned decision. As to the three claims that were presented to the state appellate court on direct appeal, it is that decision that this Court reviews herein. See Ylst v. Nunnemaker, 501 U.S. 797, 803-04 (1991); Barker v. Fleming, 423 F.3d 1085, 1091-92 (9th Cir. 2005).

As to the claims that Petitioner raised to the California Supreme Court in his state habeas petition but did not raise on direct appeal, as noted above there is no reasoned opinion on collateral review. Accordingly, this Court "must determine what arguments or theories supported or, as here, could have supported, the state court's decision; and then it must ask whether it is possible fairminded jurists could disagree that those...