Perez v. Warden, N.H. State Prison

2020 DNH 183

Daniel Perez v. Warden, New Hampshire State Prison

Civil No. 19-cv-372-JD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

October 20, 2020

ORDER

Daniel Perez, proceeding pro se, seeks a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In support, he contends that, during his criminal trial in state court, evidence was used against him in violation of his Miranda¹ rights, that the court should have disclosed additional information that was reviewed in camera, and that the court illegally changed his sentence. The Warden moves for summary judgment on Perez's claims. Perez did not file a response to the motion.

Standard of Review

A court shall grant a writ of habeas corpus under § 2254 "only on the ground that [the petitioner] is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." § 2254(a). As long as the claim was adjudicated on the merits in state court, the writ cannot be granted based on alegal or factual error, and instead the court applies a deferential standard. Gomes v. Silva, 958 F.3d 12, 19 (1st Cir. 2020). When a claim was properly presented to the state court but not adjudicated on the merits, this court reviews the claim under the de novo standard instead of the deferential review provided under § 2254(d). Clements v. Clarke, 592 F.3d 45, 52 (1st Cir. 2010); Fortini v. Murphy, 257 F.3d 39, 47 (1t Cir. 2001).

A claim is adjudicated on the merits if the claim was decided on the substance presented, rather than on a procedural ground, and the decision has res judicata effect. Linton v. Saba, 812 F.3d 112, 122 (1st Cir. 2016). Further, a claim is adjudicated on the merits, although the decision is "framed in terms of state law . . . as long as the state and federal issues are for all practical purposes synonymous and the state standard is at least as protective of the defendant's rights as its federal counterpart." Id.

Under the deferential standard, a writ may be granted when the state court's adjudication of the petitioner's federal constitutional claims "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." § 2254(d)(1). Alternatively, a writ may begranted if the adjudication "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." § 2254(d)(2). For purposes of that showing, "a determination of a factual issue made by a State court shall be presumed to be correct." § 2254(e)(1).

A petition for a writ of habeas corpus under § 2254 ordinarily is decided based on the existing record. A hearing will be held only in limited circumstances. § 2254(e)(2); Jackson v. Marshall, 864 F.3d 1, 14 (1st Cir. 2017). Those circumstances have not been shown to exist here, and therefore a hearing was not held.

Background

The background facts are taken from the transcript of the hearing on Perez's motion to suppress, document no. 13 filed conventionally; the New Hampshire Supreme Court's decision, State v. Perez, Case No. 2016-0271, 2017 WL 4341420 (N.H. Aug. 1, 2017); exhibits filed by Perez with the petition, document no. 1, and documents filed by the Warden with the answer, document no. 12.

When the events leading to his arrest occurred, Perez was staying with his girlfriend and her children. His girlfriend'sten-year-old daughter, "Y", accused him of sexually assaulting her and provided accounts of sexual assault by Perez during an interview at the Child Advocacy Center. Salem Police Detective Geha investigated the allegations of sexual assault.

Geha called Perez on June 24, 2014, to arrange to speak with him and asked Perez to come to the police station. Once there, Perez was taken to an interview room. Detective Ryan Sambataro joined them. Geha talked to Perez in English, and Perez had no trouble understanding him. Perez also responded in English, in complete sentences, and Geha had no trouble understanding him. Although Geha can speak Spanish, he saw no need to conduct the interview in Spanish.

Geha told Perez he was free to leave at any time. Geha read the five rights stated on a Miranda form to Perez, line by line, asking Perez if he understood each right as he read it, and Perez responded that he did. Geha did not read the waiver section of the form.² Geha asked Perez if he were willing to talk with him about the allegations of sexual assault. Perez said he was and signed the waiver section of the form.

To begin the interview, Geha told Perez that Y had accused him of touching her genitals, her chest, and her buttocks. Perez responded by saying that he did not remember. Sambataro left the interview room, and Geha continued the interview.

As the interview progressed, Perez seemed more comfortable. After an hour to an hour and a half, Perez admitted that Y was telling the truth. Geha then asked Perez if he could turn on the recording equipment, and Perez agreed. Geha again asked Perez, during the recorded part of the interview, if he understood his rights, and Perez answered that he did.

Before his criminal trial, Perez moved to suppress the statements he made to Detectives Geha. In support, he argued that he did not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waive his Miranda rights. He argued that he had limited education and a learning disability but did not present evidence to establish those facts. The trial court denied the motion. Perez's statements to Geha were introduced into evidence at trial.

Although Perez did not testify during the suppression hearing, he did testify at trial. There, Perez testified that he could not read or write well and then said that he did not know how to read. He testified that he told Geha that he could not read, but Geha told him to sign the Miranda form anyway.

Perez was convicted on one count of aggravated felonious sexual assault, one count of attempted aggravated felonious sexual assault, and three counts of felonious sexual assault. He was sentenced to three and a half to ten years in prison on each charge of felonious sexual assault, to be served concurrently. His sentence on attempted aggravated felonious sexual assault was suspended.

On appeal, Perez argued that although Geha carefully read the Miranda rights and determined that Perez understood them, he did not read the waiver of rights section or determine that Perez understood the waiver of his Miranda rights. He also argued that the trial court erred in failing to disclose documents that were reviewed by the court in camera. The New Hampshire Supreme Court "address[ed] the suppression issued under the State Constitution and rel[ied] upon federal law only to aid [the] analysis." Perez, 2017 WL 4341420, at *2. It addressed the issue of in camera review under the state law standard. Id. The trial court's decision was affirmed.

The state filed an application for review of Perez's sentence. On January 2, 2019, the sentencing review board increased Perez's sentences to seven and a half to fifteen years in prison on the felonious sexual assault charges, to be served concurrently, and did not change the sentence on attemptedaggravated felonious sexual assault. His petition to the New Hampshire Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari was denied on May 3, 2019.

Perez filed his habeas petition in this court on April 11, 2019. On preliminary review and after amendment, the court allowed the following claims:

(1) Statements he made to the Salem police were used against him, after his motion to suppress was denied, although he did not make a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of his Miranda rights.

(2) The trial court reviewed potentially exculpatory confidential information in camera but did not disclose it.

(3) The superior court illegally changed Perez's sentence.

See Docs. nos. 7, 9, and 10.

The Warden moved to have this court review, in camera, the documents that are the subject of Perez's claim number 2. The motion was granted. Doc. no. 15. Those documents were sent to the court by the clerk of court of the Rockingham County Superior Court and were docketed, under seal, on October 9, 2020. Doc. no. 21.

Discussion

The Warden moves for summary judgment on all three of Perez's claims. In support, he contends that the New HampshireSupreme Court applied the appropriate legal standards in concluding that Perez's statements were not used in violation of his Miranda rights and that Perez's sentence was not changed illegally. With respect to the claim pertaining to the documents reviewed in camera, the court will also review the documents in camera to determine whether the New Hampshire Supreme Court's decision was contrary to or an unreasonable determination of federal law.

A. Miranda Rights

Perez contends that his Miranda rights were violated because the police ordered him to sign a Miranda waiver that he could not read due to his severe learning disabilities and then his statements were used against him at trial. More specifically, Perez contends that he did not knowingly waive his rights because Detective Geha did not read the waiver section to him and he was unable to read it to himself. The government moves for summary judgment on that claim, arguing that the New Hampshire Supreme Court's decision affirming denial of his motion to suppress is neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law.

Under clearly established federal law, "most statements made by a suspect during a custodial interrogation areinadmissible at trial absent a valid waiver of Miranda rights." United States v. Carpentino, 948 F.3d 10, 25 (1st Cir. 2020). A waiver of Miranda rights is valid, if "appraised in light of all the circumstances, the waiver was both knowing and voluntary." Id. at 26. To be a knowing waiver, the suspect must have "full awareness of both the nature of the right being abandoned and the consequences of the decision to...