Lopez v. Lopez

ARMANDO LOPEZ, Petitioner, v. RAUL LOPEZ, Warden, Respondent.

Case No.: 1:11-cv-00121-JLT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Dated: September 19, 2013

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS (Doc. 1)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF THE COURT TO

ENTER JUDGMENT AND CLOSE FILE

ORDER DECLINING TO ISSUE CERTIFICATE

OF APPEALABILITY

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The petition was filed on January 24, 2011. (Doc. 1). On March 2, 2011, Petitioner filed his written consent to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge for all purposes. (Doc. 11). On February 17, 2011, Respondent filed his written consent to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge for all purposes. (Doc. 9).

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Petitioner is in custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR") pursuant to a December 21, 2007 judgment of the Superior Court of California, County of Stanislaus (the "Superior Court"). Petitioner was convicted by jury trial of premeditated attempted murder, possession of a shank while in jail or prison, and participation in a criminal street gang. (People v. Lopez, 2009 WL 1783504 (Cal. App. June 24, 2009)(unpublished), slip op. at p. 1). Thejury also found true special allegations that the offenses were committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang, that Petitioner had personally inflicted great bodily injury, and that he had personally used a weapon, i.e., the shank. (Id.). In a bifurcated proceeding, the jury found that Petitioner had suffered several prior "serious" or "violent" felonies that qualified as strikes under California's "Three Strikes" law (Cal. Pen. Code §§ 667(d) & (e)). (Id.). Petitioner was sentenced to an indeterminate term of 15 years-to-life on the attempted murder charge and determinate terms of two years on the remaining counts. (Id.).

Petitioner subsequently filed a direct appeal in the California Court of Appeals, Fifth Appellate District (the "5^th DCA"), which, in an unpublished decision issued on June 24, 2009, affirmed Petitioner's conviction. (Id.). On July 28, 2009, Petitioner filed a petition for review in the California Supreme Court. (Doc. 19, Lodged Documents ("LD") 1). On October 14, 2009, the state supreme court denied Petitioner's petition for review.

On January 24, 2011, Petitioner filed the instant petition. (Doc. 1). Respondent's answer was filed on May 2, 2011. (Doc. 18). Petitioner has not filed a Traverse. Respondent alleges that several of Petitioner's claims are unexhausted. That issue will be addressed in the context of those specific arguments in which the issue has been raised.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The Court adopts the Statement of Facts in the 5^th DCA's unpublished decision¹:

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Armando Lopez (A.Lopez), Paul Anthony Lopez, Jr. (P. Lopez), and Albert Andrew Lucero (Lucero) were charged with the premeditated attempted murder (count 1) of Kenneth Lindsay, assault with a deadly weapon (count 2), possession of a shank while in jail or prison (count 3), and participation in a criminal street gang (count 4). The information also alleged that the three committed the offenses charged in counts 1, 2, and 3 for the benefit of a criminal street gang within the meaning of Penal Code1 section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1), and that the three personally inflicted great bodily injury (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)) and personally used a deadly weapon (§ 12022, subd. (b)) in the commission of the offenses charged. The information also alleged that A. Lopez had served a prior prison term and that Lucero had suffered two prior serious felony convictions and had served a prior prison term. The prosecutor ultimatelydecided not to seek the personal-use enhancement against P. Lopez and Lucero. A fourth man, Timothy McKenzie, was charged, but was acquitted by the jury.

Following trial, the jury found all three defendants guilty on counts 1, 3, and 4, but acquitted them of assault with a deadly weapon. The jury found true the allegation that the offenses were committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang and that the three defendants had each personally inflicted great bodily injury. The jury also found that A. Lopez had personally used a weapon (the shank). In a bifurcated proceeding, the trial court found true the allegations concerning the prior prison terms and prior serious felony convictions.

Lucero was sentenced to an indeterminate term of 30 years to life on count 1 and a consecutive determinate term of eight years on the remaining counts. P. Lopez was sentenced to an indeterminate term of 15 years to life on count 1 and a consecutive determinate term of two years on the remaining counts. A. Lopez was sentenced to an indeterminate term of 15 years to life on count 1 and a determinate term of two years on the remaining counts.

FACTUAL SUMMARY

All three defendants were inmates at Stanislaus County Jail and all were validated members of the Norteno gang. Lindsay, McKenzie, and the three defendants were housed together with other documented members of the Norteno gang in a 12-man cell. On October 19, 2006, the inmates were removed from their cell for cell maintenance. Four of the inmates, including Lindsay, temporarily were placed together in a holding cell. While in the cell, Lindsay found three balloons of heroin. Lindsay gave one balloon to a cellmate and secreted two of the balloons on his person. Later, Lindsay informed A. Lopez and P. Lopez about the heroin. Heroin is a valuable commodity in jail. Generally, gang members are required to share with other gang members any drugs that are found, not for consumption, but for use in gaining power and control within the jail. Lindsay kept his two balloons instead of passing them on to gang leaders. He began to barter the heroin for commodity items, which violates the gang's code of conduct. Inmates who engage in this behavior face punishment and "removal" by other gang members. Fatal removals involve the use of weapons.

Later that evening, after Lindsay took his shower, he was invited to join in a game of cards. Seated at the table were the three defendants and McKenzie. While sitting at the table, Lindsay was hit from behind in the chest. He turned and saw A. Lopez. P. Lopez came to Lindsay's side. At first, Lindsay believed P. Lopez was coming to his aid, but instead P. Lopez punched Lindsay in the face and was grinning. Lindsay was hit from the other side but was not sure who hit him. He tried to grab hold of McKenzie but was unable to stay up. Lindsay fell to the floor. His assailants then kicked and hit him numerous times. Lindsay yelled "man down" in an attempt to summon deputies. P. Lopez told him to "shut up" and "close [his] eyes," a reference Lindsay understood as meaning to die. Lucero kicked him from behind. Lindsay could not say how many times he was kicked or hit or who inflicted what blows. He did not see McKenzie hit or kick him. Lindsay did not see any weapons. After A. Lopez hit him in the chest, Lindsay pushed A. Lopez off of him and A. Lopez scooted to the right and was gone.

Lindsay lost consciousness. As a result of the attack, Lindsay suffered wounds to the back of his head requiring stitches; a number of scratches, including one across his neck; a slice andscrape across his nipple; and a small puncture-like wound on his chest that did not require stitches. There was no mention of the puncture wound or stabbing in the medical reports.

When the deputies arrived at the cell, Lindsay was down and nonresponsive. There was blood on the floor and blood scattered about the cell. None of the inmates in the cell claimed to have seen what happened. The deputies segregated the inmates who had visible signs of trauma. P. Lopez, A. Lopez, and one other inmate were found to have redness, swelling, or cuts on their hands. A. Lopez was wearing a T-shirt that had a sleeve torn off, and blood was found on his boxer shorts. P. Lopez's boxers also had blood on them. There were no marks found on Lucero's hands. After the assault, the heroin was gone.

The next morning, Deputy Teso, a gang specialist officer, came to investigate the attack. When interviewing an inmate, Teso asked him to lift his trouser legs. When the inmate complied, Teso found a "huila" or written memo. The huila was addressed to "Manos" and signed by "Soldier." It detailed the assault on Lindsay and named those who participated in the attack and provided the motive for the attack-Lindsay's failure to follow the gang's code of conduct.

Detective Navarro interviewed Lindsay the day after the assault. Lindsay did not identify any of his attackers. Later, Lindsay said he did not do so out of fear. In March 2007, Lindsay ran into A. Lopez during a court date. A. Lopez asked Lindsay if he was going to testify and told Lindsay he was lucky to be alive. Lindsay took this as a threat. After this encounter, Lindsay negotiated a deal with the prosecution and identified his attackers.

(Lopez, supra, slip op. at pp. 1-2).

DISCUSSION

I. Jurisdiction

Relief by way of a petition for writ of habeas corpus extends to a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a state court if the custody is in violation of the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3); Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 375 n. 7 (2000). Petitioner asserts that he suffered violations of his rights as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. The challenged conviction arises out of the Stanislaus County Superior Court, which is located within the jurisdiction of this court. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); 28 U.S.C.§ 2241(d).

On April 24, 1996, Congress enacted the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA"), which applies to all petitions for writ of habeas corpus filed after its enactment. Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320 (1997), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1008, 118 S.Ct. 586 (1997); Jeffries v. Wood, 114 F.3d 1484, 1500 (...