Ramirez v. Lumpkin

1

JUAN RAUL NAVARRO RAMIREZ, Petitioner, v. BOBBY LUMPKIN, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent.

Civil Action No. 7:18-CV-386

United States District Court, S.D. Texas, McAllen Division

May 31, 2024

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

J. SCOTT HACKER, United States Magistrate Judge.

Petitioner JUAN RAUL NAVARRO RAMIREZ, a Texas death-row inmate represented by court-appointed counsel, initiated this action by filing a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Dkt. No. 24), which he later supplemented through an amended petition (Dkt. No. 67) (collectively, the “Petition”).

Following a jury trial in the 370th Judicial District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas, Petitioner was convicted and sentenced to death on two counts of capital murder. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (the “TCCA”) affirmed the conviction and sentence on one of the two counts on direct appeal and again on collateral review. Now, seeking federal habeas review, Petitioner raises several claims for relief from his conviction and sentence, including multiple Sixth Amendment claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, as well as Eighth Amendment claims of cruel and unusual punishment, among others. The Petition seems to focus nonetheless, on the claim that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance at the punishment phase of the trial in failing to investigate and present mitigating evidence of Petitioner's purported neurodevelopmental disabilities brain damage, and mental illness.

Respondent has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (the “Summary Judgment Motion”) (Dkt. No. 91) together with a copy of the state court record (Dkt. Nos. 85 through 90).^[1] Respondent moves for dismissal or denial on grounds that Petitioner's claims are untimely, non-cognizable, unexhausted, procedurally defaulted, or without merit. Petitioner has filed a combined response and Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (the “Cross-Motion”) (Dkt. No. 103). The parties have also filed further response and reply briefs. (Dkt. Nos. 109, 112).

This case has been referred to the Magistrate Judge for a report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Having considered the record, the parties' arguments, and the applicable law-giving particular attention to the standards of the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, 28 U.S.C. § 2241 et seq. (the “AEDPA”)-the Magistrate Judge concludes that Petitioner's claims are non-cognizable, unexhausted, procedurally defaulted, or without merit. Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that the Summary Judgment Motion (Dkt. No. 91) be GRANTED, that the Cross-Motion (Dkt. No. 103) be DENIED, that the Petition (Dkt. Nos. 24, 67) be DENIED, and that this action be DISMISSED. The Magistrate Judge also RECOMMENDS that a Certificate of Appealability be DENIED.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Offense Conduct

This case involves the gang-related murder of six men in what became known locally as the “Edinburg massacre.” Garza v. Thaler, 487 Fed.Appx. 907, 910 (5th Cir. 2012) (per curiam).

In the early morning hours of January 5, 2003, police responded to a 9-1-1 call from a residential property in Edinburg, Texas located on Monte Cristo Road (the “Monte Cristo Property”). Ramirez v. State, 2007 WL 4375936, at *1 (Tex. Crim. App. Dec. 12, 2007). The Monte Cristo Property consisted of two buildings-the “east-side” and “west-side” houses- separated by a dirt driveway. Id. Officers observed that the houses had been ransacked, as if someone had been looking for something. Id. They found the corpses of six men. Id. Each of the men had been shot, some multiple times. Id. The victims were eventually identified as Jimmy Almendarez, Ruben Castillo, Juan Delgado, III (“Delgado, III”), Juan Delgado, Jr. (“Delgado, Jr.”) (collectively, the “Delgados”), and brothers Jerry Eugene Hidalgo (“J. Hidalgo”) and Ray Hidalgo (“R. Hidalgo”) (collectively, the “Hidalgos”). Id.

Rosie Gutierrez (“Gutierrez”), the sole survivor from the west-side house, provided the following account of what transpired on the night in question, as summarized by the TCCA:

[Gutierrez] testified that she and her sons, [the Hidalgos,] lived at [the Monte Cristo Property,] and that the Delgados, Almendarez, and Castillo were her sons' friends. On the night of January 4, [Gutierrez] played dominoes with her sons in the west-side house. [R. Hidalgo] went to the east-side house with Delgado, Jr., at around midnight. Shortly thereafter, [Gutierrez] and [J. Hidalgo] finished playing dominoes and went into the living room. [Gutierrez] suffered from a medical condition that affected her legs, so she laid down in a borrowed hospital bed she kept in the living room to watch television while [J. Hidalgo] talked on the phone with a friend. She heard loud booming noises that sounded like fireworks; then someone banged on her door, and three or four men entered her house. The leader, a man who spoke Spanish and who had a long gun with holes in the barrel, pointed the gun at her head and told her to lie down and face the wall. He was wearing a ski mask and a jacket with the word “Police” on the sleeves and back. He ordered his cohorts to tie up [Gutierrez] and [J. Hidalgo,] and they used extension cords to do so. The man who tied up [Gutierrez] was unmasked and carried a smaller handgun. The other men who restrained [J. Hidalgo] were masked, and [Gutierrez] was unsure if they had guns. The leader demanded “drugs, money, gold and guns” and kept hitting [J. Hidalgo] in the head with his gun. [J. Hidalgo] responded that they did not have anything. “They” told [J. Hidalgo] to take off his gold necklace and asked for the car keys. [J. Hidalgo] answered that the car was “no good” and that they would get caught if they left in it. “The guy” pulled off [J. Hidalgo's] tennis shoes and asked if anyone wanted them. He then dropped the tennis shoes, stating, “Let's go,” and they left.

Shortly thereafter, “a man with a ski mask” carrying a long gun and wearing a jacket with “Police” on it came back into the house and ransacked the living room. He left, came back inside, shot [J. Hidalgo] “a whole bunch of times,” then left again. [Gutierrez] then untied herself and called 9-1-1.

Id. at *2.

As detailed further below, investigators would conclude that the crime was a gang-on-gang robbery-homicide targeting members of the “Texas Chicano Brotherhood,” or the “Chicanos,” by a rival group known as the “Tri-City Bombers,” also called the “Bombitas” or, formerly, the “TCBs.” See id. at *1, 4.

B. Investigation

On January 13, 2003, investigators received a call from an informant who related details of the crime unknown to the public-including the “pseudo-cop” nature of the robbery-homicide-along with the whereabouts of potential persons of interest. (Dkt. No. 87-12 at 16).

The tip led investigators to Guadalupe Bocanegra (“G. Bocanegra”), a member of the TriCity Bombers. Medrano v. State, 2008 WL 5050076, at *2, 16 (Tex. Crim. App. Nov. 26, 2008). Based on information provided by G. Bocanegra, multiple suspects were apprehended, including his brother, Marcial Bocanegra (“M. Bocanegra”). Id. at *2, 16-17. M. Bocanegra went on to implicate several other individuals, leading to Petitioner's arrest. See id. at *2, 17.

C. Arrest, Confession, and Booking

On January 29, 2003, Petitioner was arrested at his aunt's house in Hargill, Texas and transported to the Edinburg Police Department, where he met with Investigator Edgardo Ruiz (“Investigator E. Ruiz”) and Investigator Ramiro Ruiz (“Investigator R. Ruiz”). Ramirez, 2007 WL 4375936, at *10, 13-14. Upon waiving his Miranda rights, Petitioner gave a recorded statement to the investigators. Id. at *14. The TCCA summarized his statement as follows:

[Petitioner] admitted that he “used to hang around with” some “TCB” gang members. He said that at 7:00 or 8:00 p.m. on January 4, Robert Garza (a/k/a “Bones”) called and asked him if he wanted to make some money. “Bones” told him it was about “some jelly beans,” which means “some pounds.” Bones told him an amount, which [Petitioner] thought was “a thousand pounds or a little bit more of something.” He agreed to participate and met Bones at the home of a person who went by the name Juanon (a/k/a “Barney”). Some of the other people present included Salvador Solis, Freddy Krueger, and [M. Bocanegra.] Most of them were wearing black, some wore ski masks, and all of them wore gloves. [Petitioner] stated that “it was supposed to be a pseudo-cop” type of robbery, and they “were supposed to go in there to look for drugs and weapons.”

[Petitioner] stated that when he arrived at Juanon's, the guns and bullets had already been cleaned of fingerprints. [Petitioner,] the last one to choose his weapon, selected a “cuerno de chivo.” [Petitioner] said the men drove to the scene in a black or dark blue truck and a light brown Escalade, and the “one with the Escalade” was “the one who was telling us what was going down.” The “one with the Escalade” said: “They got guns and there might be some people in there, too, so you gotta put them down ‘cause the family members got some guns.”

[Petitioner] stated that they hid in the tall grass in a field behind the houses with their high-caliber weapons. When a man stepped outside to use the bathroom, they got up, “started rushing the houses,” and “rushed him in.” [Petitioner,] Salvador, and another man went into one house where “there was only a lady and a guy.” [Petitioner] stated: “We heard . . . some gunshots in the other house, but we didn't know what was it about, so we didn't think nothing bad was happening.” [Petitioner] stated that they put the male victim down on the floor at gunpoint and that he ordered one of the men

...