Rivas v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr.

1

CARLOS RUBEN RIVAS, Petitioner, v. SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent.

No. 8:21-cv-2083-KKM-CPT

United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division

August 24, 2023

ORDER

Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, United States District Judge

Carlos Ruben Rivas, a Florida prisoner, timely^[1] filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his state court convictions based on alleged errors of the state courts and alleged failures of his trial counsel. (Doc. 1.) Having considered the petition (id.), the supplements to the petition, (Docs. 1-1 & 7), the response in opposition, (Doc. 8), and the reply, (Doc. 9), the petition is denied. Because reasonable jurists would not disagree, a certificate of appealability also is not warranted.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Procedural Background

A state court jury convicted Rivas of one count of premeditated first-degree murder and one count of theft. (Doc. 8-2, Ex. 33.) The state trial court sentenced him to life in prison. (Id., Ex. 34.) The state appellate court per curiam affirmed the convictions and sentences. (Id., Ex. 41.) Rivas sought postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. (Id., Exs. 43 & 47.) The state court denied his motion. (Id., Ex. 48.) The state appellate court per curiam affirmed the denial. (Id., Ex. 52.)

B. Factual Background^[2]

On November 17, 2012, Rivas flagged down Officer Roger Brown at a traffic light and stated that he had murdered somebody. (Doc. 8-2, Ex. 31, pp. 163-66.) Officer Brown pulled over and made contact with Rivas at a gas station. (Id., pp. 166-67.) Rivas appeared upset; his eyes were red and it looked to Officer Brown like Rivas had been crying. (Id., p. 167.) Officer Brown read Rivas his Miranda^[3] rights from a Tampa Police Department form. (Id., pp. 168-69.) Rivas indicated that he understood his rights, said that he was willing to talk, and initialed a form consenting to be interviewed. (Id., pp. 170-71.)

Rivas explained to Officer Brown that he had met and befriended the victim, Darryl Brown, two days earlier on November 15, 2012, and invited the victim to his apartment. (Id., pp. 171-72.) Rivas stated that the next morning, the victim gave him money to buy alcohol and things for the apartment. (Id., p. 172.) But instead of purchasing the agreed-upon items, Rivas stated, he bought drugs and became worried because he thought the victim would be angry. (Id.) Rivas stated that he thought about it for a while and decided he needed to kill the victim. (Id., p. 173.) When Rivas returned to the apartment, the victim was sleeping on his bed. (Id.) Rivas placed a towel on the victim's head and hit the victim over the head several times with a “workout bar.” (Id.) Rivas stated that he was upset, that he had left the body in the apartment for a day, and that he was trying to decide what to do. (Id.)

Rivas consented to a search of his apartment and gave his apartment keys to Officer Brown. (Id., pp. 174-75.) Rivas started preparing a written statement, but stopped and said that he would tell police everything they needed to know. (Id., pp. 179-80.) Rivas was transported to the police station for a formal interview. (Id., p. 180.) During his conversation with Rivas at the gas station, Officer Brown had no problem understanding Rivas. (Id., p. 170.) Rivas communicated and answered questions appropriately and never appeared confused or gave confusing answers. (Id., pp. 170-71.)

At the police station, Detective Charles Massucci conducted the interview. Officer Brown and another officer were also present. Detective Massucci put his digital recorder on the table, and believed that it was recording the conversation. (Id., pp. 372-74.) Several minutes after the interview started, Officer Brown also began recording it on his cell phone to assist him with writing a report. (Id., p. 183.) Detective Massucci later realized that his recording device malfunctioned and recorded none of the interview. (Id., p. 374.) Brown's cell phone recording did not capture the beginning of the interview, including the discussion of Miranda. (Id., pp. 377.)

At trial, Detective Massucci testified to the portions of the interview not contained in the recording. He referred to the Miranda waiver form that Rivas had signed and asked Rivas if he wanted Detective Massucci to read it to him or if he wanted to read it himself. (Id., pp. 378-79.) Rivas responded that he did not want Detective Massucci to read him his rights, and agreed to talk. (Id., p. 379.) Rivas gave more details of the events, explaining that he met the victim at a Dunkin' Donuts on November 15, 2012, and that the victim had lost his identification and bank card. (Id., pp. 379, 381.) Rivas offered to push the victim in his wheelchair to the bank. (Id., pp. 379-80.) There, the victim got a temporary bank card. (Id., p. 381.) Rivas stated that he pushed the victim's wheelchair back to Rivas's apartment and allowed him to stay there. (Id., pp. 381-82.)

The victim stated that they should have a drink and buy a DVD player to watch movies. (Id., p. 383.) The victim gave Rivas approximately $400.00 to buy items including a DVD player, alcohol, and cigarettes. (Id., p. 384.) Instead, Rivas spent the money on rock cocaine and smoked it. (Id., p. 384.) Rivas told Detective Massucci that when he returned to the apartment the victim questioned him about the items, and he tricked the victim to obtain the temporary bank card and security code. (Id. p. 385.)

The audio recording apparently captured the remainder of the interview; therefore, after Detective Massucci concluded his testimony about the beginning of the interview, the audio recording was played before the jury. On the recording, Rivas stated that he thought the victim would be unhappy that he spent the money, so Rivas hit him on the head when he was sleeping. (Id., p. 388.) Rivas stated that he could not believe he came to that decision and accepted responsibility for the victim's death. (Id., pp. 388-90.) Rivas stated that he struck the victim with a heavy bar and that the bar was still by the door. (Id., p. 395.) He stated that he thought about doing it the whole night. (Id., p. 395-96.) Rivas stated that after the victim died, he withdrew more money and went to a hotel. (Id., p. 390.) Rivas stated that he flagged down Officer Brown because the victim deserved to be moved from the apartment and be buried. (Id., p. 389.)

At one point in the recording, Rivas stated that he was under the influence of alcohol. (Id., pp. 391-92.) Detective Massucci responded that Rivas was conversing clearly, and asked Rivas whether it was affecting him medically or psychologically. (Id., p. 392.) Rivas responded, “emotionally.” (Id.) Detective Massucci responded that he could tell Rivas was upset, that Rivas had been forthright, and that he wanted to be clear that Rivas was not impaired or confused. (Id.) Rivas responded, “(Indiscernible) no.” (Id.)

Police found the deceased victim on a mattress in Rivas's apartment. (Id., pp. 21920, 269.) Behind a door in the apartment was what crime scene technician Alison Arnold described as a “home gym weight bar.” (Id., p. 220.) She also observed possible drug paraphernalia and recovered the victim's bank statement. (Id., pp. 220-21, 230-32.) Rivas indicated to police that he had some receipts, and that the victim's bank card was in his wallet. (Id., pp. 393-94, 397.) Receipts recovered from Rivas's person and apartment displayed the last four digits of the temporary bank card, which was found in Rivas's wallet. (Id, pp. 227-28, 413.) The cause of the victim's death was “blunt impact to the head with skull fractures and cerebral lacerations,” which are “tearing of the brain.” (Id., p. 325.) The victim had no defensive wounds. (Id.)

After his arrest, Rivas was housed at the Falkenburg Road Jail. He attended his first appearance hearing on December 1, 2012, from the hearing room at the jail. (Id., pp. 33132.) After the hearing, Rivas told Deputy Rohit Setia that he and the victim got into an argument about missing money and Rivas killed the victim in his apartment with workout equipment. (Id., pp. 334-35, 337.) Deputy Wayne Coker then transported Rivas back to his cell, and Rivas stated that he beat the victim to death with a metal pipe and that he smoked crack on top of the victim's body as the victim was “gurgling.” (Id., pp. 351-52.)

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW UNDER SECTION 2254

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) governs this proceeding. Carroll v. Sec'y, DOC, 574 F.3d 1354, 1364 (11th Cir. 2009). Habeas relief under the AEDPA can be granted only if a petitioner is in custody “in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). “The power of the federal courts to grant a writ of habeas corpus setting aside a state prisoner's conviction on a claim that his conviction was obtained in violation of the United States Constitution is strictly circumscribed.” Green v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr., 28 F.4th 1089, 1093 (11th Cir. 2022).

Section 2254(d) provides that federal habeas relief cannot be granted on a claim adjudicated on the merits in state court unless the state court's adjudication:

(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.

For purposes of § 2254(d)(1), the phrase “clearly established Federal law” encompasses the holdings only of the United States Supreme Court “as of the time of the relevant state-court decision.”...