Alvarez v. Davis
| Decision Date | 25 October 2017 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:09-CV-3040 |
| Parties | JUAN CARLOS ALVAREZ, Petitioner, v. LORIE DAVIS, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas |
JUAN CARLOS ALVAREZ, Petitioner,
v.
LORIE DAVIS, Respondent.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:09-CV-3040
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION
October 25, 2017
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
In 1999, a Texas jury convicted Juan Carlos Alvarez of capital murder and sentenced him to death. After availing himself of state appellate and habeas review, Alvarez filed a federal petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Respondent Lorie Davis has filed an answer. Having reviewed the extensive pleadings, the record, and the applicable law, the Court finds that Alvarez has not shown an entitlement to habeas relief. The Court, therefore, will deny his petition. The Court will not certify any issue for appellate consideration.
In 1998, the State of Texas charged Alvarez with capital murder committed "during different criminal transactions but pursuant to the same scheme and course of conduct . . . ." Clerk's Record at 4. The State argued at trial that Alvarez, a member of the Southwest Cholos street gang, participated in two shootings related to tension with a rival gang, La Primera: (1) the June 6, 1998, murder of Michael Aguirre and his brother, Adrian Aguirre, at an apartment complex on Prestwood Street in Houston, Texas ("the Prestwood shooting") and (2) the June 17, 1998, shooting of José "Joey" Varela and Hugo Perez at an apartment complex on Woodfair Street in Houston, Texas ("the Woodfair shooting"). With regard to each murder, the State based
Page 2
its case on eyewitness accounts, co-participant testimony, forensic evidence, and Alvarez's statement to the police.
On June 6, 1998, a group of people celebrated a birthday party outside an apartment complex frequented by individuals associated with local street gangs. After a procession of five cars rolled up to the apartment complex, gunshots rang out. Bullets struck numerous people and killed two men, Adrian Aguirre and Michael Aguirre. Bullet casings found in the street were consistent with having been fired from an assault rifle and a .380.
Eyewitness testimony established Alvarez's identity as one of the gunmen. Miguel Reyes, a Southwest Cholos gang member, testified at trial that Alvarez directed and participated in the Prestwood shooting. Reyes met up with Alvarez, who was known as "El Chuco," and the men went to look for members of La Primera. As they traveled to various locations and met up with other members of the Southwest Cholos, Alvarez rode as a passenger in his maroon, four-door vehicle. Reyes explained that gang members then drove in a five-car procession to the Prestwood apartment complex, with Alvarez saying that they would "shoot at the guys from La Primera; at whomever." Tr. Vol. 19 at 191-93. The gang members found a large number of men in the parking lot clothed in white, the color worn by members of La Primera gang. Alvarez opened his car door, put a weapon similar to an AK-47 to his shoulder, and walked to the front of the vehicle. Alvarez opened fire. Only one other gang member, Santos "Spooky" Flores, shot at the men.1
Page 3
Forensic evidence confirmed Alvarez's involvement in the crime. The police recovered bullets forensic evidence showing that 7.62mm and .380 bullets had been fired at the scene. The victims had been killed by bullets fired from either a .38 or .357 revolver that was never recovered. The police eventually recovered a Russian Norinco assault rifle (often mistaken for an AK-47) from Alvarez's closet which fired 7.62mm rounds. Ten spent casings recovered from the scene matched Alvarez's weapon.
Alvarez provided the police a videotaped statement which suggested his involvement in the Prestwood shooting. In that statement, Alvarez professed his membership in the Southwest Cholos. He admitted that he used his car in the Prestwood shooting. He admitted that he knew that his fellow gang members would fire at what they believed were members of a rival gang. Alvarez admitted that he had furnished the assault rifle for the drive-by shooting, but denied firing a weapon himself.2
Witnesses also tied Alvarez to the Woodfair shooting. Flores' girlfriend testified that she saw him and Alvarez loading weapons before the Woodfair shooting. Alvarez carried a shotgun and assault rifle. They left in Alvarez's car. When the two men returned later that night, Alvarez had what appeared to be blood stains on his shirt.
Brandy Varela, sister of sixteen-year-old victim José Varela, testified that on June 17, 1998, she went outside her apartment to see her brother and his friend Hugo Perez. As her brother took a jack to help some men with a flat tire, she sensed someone coming toward her.
Page 4
She turned around and saw a man she later identified as Alvarez holding a shotgun. Alvarez yelled "Southwest Cholos, puto" and fired. She ran. A neighbor heard the gunshots and saw a man carrying a shotgun get into a car similar to that owned by Alvarez. When Brandy Varela returned she found the two men dead. José Varela had been killed by shotgun wounds to the face and back.
The police recovered a shotgun from Alvarez's apartment. Kristi Kim, a DNA analyst with the Houston Police Department Crime Lab, testified that the blood on the shotgun had DNA patterns consistent with Jose Varela's blood.
In his statement, Alvarez denied firing a weapon at the Woodfair shooting. The State, however, used several of his admissions to suggest his involvement in the crime, such as that: his maroon Nissan Altima was used in the shooting; his wife drove and he rode in the front seat to the location; they carried a shotgun and assault rifle; and he knew gang members planned on shooting somebody, most likely a member of the La Primera gang. The State used these admissions to argue that, even if Alvarez did not pull the trigger, he was guilty of capital murder under Texas' law of parties. Clerk's Record at 481.3
Frumencio Reyes and John L. Denninger represented Alvarez at trial.4 The defense faced a daunting challenge in representing Alvarez: eyewitnesses had identified him as a shooter, gang members pointed to him as the one who ordered the violent acts, ballistic evidence tied him to the crimes, and his own statements confirmed some involvement. The State's choice to proceed
Page 5
under Texas' law of parties allowed for Alvarez's conviction even if the defense could prove that he never fired a shot.
The defense only called two witnesses in the guilt/innocence phase, both of whom testified about the police's interaction with Alvarez and his wife that led to his arrest. The defense used that testimony to argue that police overbearing rendered his statement involuntary. The defense tried to poke holes in the State's case by challenging the credibility of various witnesses, strongly emphasizing their self-serving willingness to spread blame for the killings.
The jury found Alvarez guilty of capital murder.
The jury decided Alvarez's fate by answering three special issue questions:
Special Issue No. 1
Do you find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that there is a probability that the defendant, Juan Carlos Alvarez, would commit criminal acts of violence that would constitute a continuing threat to society?Special Issue No. 2
Do you find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that Juan Carlos Alvarez, the defendant himself, actually caused the death of M. Aguirre and J. Varela, on the occasion in question, or if he did not actually cause the death of M. Aguirre and J. Varela, that he intended to kill M. Aguirre and J. Varela, or that he anticipated that a human life would be taken?Special Issue No. 3
Do you find from the evidence, taking into consideration all of the evidence, including the circumstances of the offense, the defendant's character and background, and the personal moral culpability of the defendant, Juan Carlos Alvarez, that there is a sufficient mitigating circumstance or circumstances to warrant that a sentence of life imprisonment rather than a death sentence be imposed?
Clerk's Record at 500-502.
The State presented evidence in the punishment phase showing Alvarez's long, and
Page 6
escalating, history of violent acts. Alvarez had previously been convicted of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon for another crime for which he received eight years deferred adjudication. Alvarez had also committed other unadjudicated aggravated assaults. The State called witnesses to describe Alvarez's repeated commission of other drive-by shootings, including one resulting in death. The State presented strong evidence of Alvarez's gang violence, often carried out randomly and with little regard for bystanders. The State's evidence provided a strong case for the jury to find that Alvarez would be a future societal danger.
The defense called six witnesses. A corrections officer testified that Alvarez was quiet and did not usually cause any problems. Four family members provided testimony about Alvarez's background. Family members explained that Alvarez's family lived in San Potosi, Mexico, until his father was killed. The family moved to Monterrey, and eventually moved to Houston, though Alvarez himself did not follow immediately. Alvarez learned English. Alvarez worked hard, helped provide for his family, did not abuse substances, was responsible, got along well with others, and was quiet. Alvarez revisited the trauma of his father's death a second time when a friend was killed.
Dr. Ramon Laval, a psychologist, testified for the defense. Dr. Laval met with Alvarez three times before trial and administered various testing instruments. Testing revealed that Alvarez was depressed and did not deal well with feelings such as anger or sadness. Alvarez, however, did not suffer from any mental illness. Dr. Laval testified that Alvarez's response to the killing of a friend ultimately led to the murders for which the jury convicted him. Dr. Laval testified that Alvarez was remorseful...
To continue reading
Request your trial