Ahlgrim v. Lopez
| Decision Date | 08 February 2013 |
| Docket Number | Civ. No. 12-1016 RB/GBW |
| Parties | DAKOTA CLAY AHLGRIM, Petitioner, v. JAMES LOPEZ and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico |
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner's Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody, doc. 1. Plaintiff has alleged seven grounds for relief. See id. I recommend that four be dismissed for failure to state a claim cognizable in a § 2254 petition and that the remaining three be dismissed on the merits.
On February 13, 2009, Petitioner, then seventeen years old, pled guilty to one count of Aggravated Battery (Deadly Weapon) in the Eleventh Judicial District Court of New Mexico, Children's Court Division. Doc. 7, ex. A. Pursuant to the plea agreement, Petitioner's sentence depended on the outcome of a hearing to determine whether Petitioner was amenable to treatment and rehabilitation as a child. Id., ex. A at 1. If, after the hearing, Petitioner was sentenced as an adult, he agreed to serve a nine yearsentence. Id. If sentenced as a child, he agreed to serve a two year commitment to the custody of the New Mexico Children, Youth and Families Department, which could be extended until Petitioner reached age twenty-one. Id.
On December 3, 2009, Judge Sandra A. Price held an amenability hearing. She found that Petitioner was not amenable to treatment or rehabilitation as a child and that he was not eligible for commitment to an institution for children with developmental disabilities or mental disorders. Id., ex. C at 8. She therefore sentenced Petitioner to nine years of incarceration followed by two years of parole. Id., ex. C at 9.
Beginning on October 28, 2010, Petitioner filed a series of habeas petitions. See id., ex. G. Petitioner was granted leave to amend his first petition and filed the amended petition on June 9, 2011. Id., ex. H. Judge Price found that the petition was "wholly inadequate for review" and permitted Petitioner to file a second amended petition. Id., ex. I at 36-37.
Petitioner filed his second amended habeas petition on December 2, 2011. Id., ex. J. The petition listed four grounds for relief: (1) ineffective assistance of counsel, based on his trial attorney's failure to prevent law enforcement from entering the wrong bandanna into evidence; (2) guilty plea obtained through coercion, based on the fact that Petitioner signed the plea agreement in reliance on his trial attorney's assertion that Petitioner would be sentenced as a juvenile regardless of the outcome of the amenability hearing; (3) breach of the plea agreement, based on Judge Price's refusal tofind that Petitioner was amenable to treatment as a juvenile despite expert testimony to the contrary; and (4) excessive punishment, because a nine year sentence is inappropriate given Petitioner's age and the fact that it was his first conviction. Id., ex. J at 38, 42. Judge Price denied the petition on February 7, 2012. Id., ex. K.
On February 29, 2012, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari in the Supreme Court of New Mexico challenging Judge Price's denial of his habeas petition. Id. , ex. N. In his writ petition, Petitioner alleged the same four grounds that he raised in his original habeas petition. Id., ex. N at 3-7. He further alleged that he was not properly Mirandized upon arrest and that his right to equal protection was violated because he was sentenced as an adult whereas others his age who commit more serious crimes are sentenced as juveniles. Id., ex. N at 8. On May 17, 2012, the Supreme Court denied Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Certiorari. Id., ex. P.
Eight days later, on May 25, 2012, Petitioner filed a second habeas petition in the Eleventh Judicial District Court ("May 2012 petition"). Id., ex. Q. This petition included five grounds: (1) ineffective assistance of counsel, based both on his trial counsel's alleged conflict of interest due to his friendship with the Deputy District Attorney and counsel's statement that Petitioner would be sentenced as a juvenile regardless of the outcome of the amenability hearing; (2) an "inadequate reporter's record," based on the insufficiency of his hearing transcripts; (3) the failure of the police to read Petitioner his Miranda rights; (4) Judge Price's alleged conflict of interest due to her friendship withthe Deputy District Attorney and her failure to recuse herself from Petitioner's proceedings; and (5) Petitioner's reformed character. Id., ex. Q at 5-9. Judge Price denied this petition on July 13, 2012. Id., ex. R.
Petitioner then filed a third habeas petition on August 6, 2012 ("August 2012 petition"). Id., ex. S. This petition listed five grounds for relief: (1) "trial court errors," alleging that Petitioner was not permitted to speak on his own behalf at his sentencing hearing and that a jury should have made the amenability determination; (2) "conflict of interest," alleging that Judge Price should have recused herself from consideration of Petitioner's May 2012 petition because she "mistakenly perceived" a letter sent to her by Petitioner as threatening; (3) "insufficient evidence" to support Petitioner's plea agreement because no gun was introduced into evidence despite the fact that he was charged with aggravated battery with a deadly weapon; (4) "active case interference," alleging that Petitioner was denied access to mental healthcare while housed at the San Juan County Juvenile Detention Center prior to his amenability hearing and that the denial prevented him from being found amenable to treatment as a juvenile; and (5) "ineffective assistance of counsel," alleging that Petitioner's trial counsel told him he could not directly appeal a guilty plea and that his trial counsel had a conflict of interest because he was friends with the Deputy District Attorney. Id., ex. S at 21-22. On August 24, 2012, Judge William Birdsall denied the petition. Id., ex. T.
Petitioner then filed a second Petition for Writ of Certiorari in the New Mexico Supreme Court on August 30, 2012, based on Judge Birdsall's denial of Petitioner's August 2012 petition. Id., ex. U. Petitioner alleged that (1) he was denied the right to speak at his sentencing hearing; (2) there was insufficient evidence to support his plea; (3) a jury should have made the amenability determination; and (4) his counsel was ineffective and his hearing was not fair. Id., ex. U at 36, 38. Petitioner asked that the court incorporate the grounds and facts alleged in his August 2012 petition by reference. Id., ex. U at 37, 39. He stated that he was unable to obtain a copy of the lower court petition to attach to the Supreme Court petition because the clerk of the Eleventh Judicial District Court refused to provide him a copy unless he paid for it. Id. On September 28, 2012, the Supreme Court denied Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Certiorari. Id., ex. V.
On that same day, September 28, 2012, Petitioner filed the instant § 2254 petition. Doc. 1. Petitioner lists five grounds for relief: (1) trial court errors; (2) conflict of interest; (3) insufficient evidence; (4) active case interference; and (5) ineffective assistance of counsel. Id. at 3. In support of those grounds, Petitioner attaches his August 2012 petition and incorporates the factual allegations therein by reference. Id. at 5-12, 17-32.
Respondents filed an answer to Petitioner's § 2254 petition on December 6, 2012. Id. They argue that Petitioner has failed to exhaust state court remedies because he did not fairly present his claims to the state trial court and the New Mexico Supreme Court.Id. at 7-8. Respondents acknowledge that it is possible that Petitioner exhausted state remedies for his ineffective assistance of counsel claims, but argue that in that case the petition should be dismissed as a mixed petition. Id. at 9-10.
In his § 2254 petition, Petitioner sets forth five grounds for relief: trial court errors, conflict of interest, insufficient evidence, active case interference, and ineffective assistance of counsel. Two of these grounds—trial court errors and ineffective assistance of counsel—contain two distinct claims. I construe the petition to allege the following seven claims:
Petitioner's August 2012 Supreme Court petition requests that the court incorporate his August 2012 trial court petition into that document.1 Doc. 7, ex. U at 2-3. Mere attachment of a lower court document does not normally constitute fair presentation of the claims therein to a higher state court. See Baldwin v. Reese, 541 U.S. 27, 32 (2004) (); Jernigan v. Jaramillo, 436 F. App'x 852, 856-857 (10th Cir. 2011) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial