Brooks v. Soto
| Decision Date | 05 December 2014 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 1:13-cv-01683-LJO-SAB-HC |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California |
| Parties | JONQUEL BROOKS, Petitioner, v. J. SOTO, Warden, Respondent. |
JONQUEL BROOKS, Petitioner,
v.
J. SOTO, Warden, Respondent.
Case No. 1:13-cv-01683-LJO-SAB-HC
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
December 5, 2014
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Pet., ECF No. 1). He is represented in this action by Charles Carbone, Esq. Respondent is the Warden of California State Prison, Los Angeles County. He is represented in this action by Rebecca Whitfield, Esq., of the California Attorney General's Office.
Petitioner is currently in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation pursuant to a judgment of the Superior Court of California, County of Fresno, following his conviction by jury trial on July 26, 2009, of the following charges: one count of first degree murder in which he personally and intentionally discharged a firearm, proximately
Page 2
causing death (Cal. Penal Code § 187(a) and 12022.53(d)); two counts of attempted murder in which he personally and intentionally discharged a firearm, proximately causing great bodily injury (Cal. Penal Code §§ 187(a), 664, and 12022.53(d)); and one count of attempted murder in which he personally and intentionally discharged a firearm (Cal. Penal Code § 187(a), 664, and 12022.53(c)). (Pet., Ex. A.) He was sentenced to serve an aggregate term of nine years and four months plus 100 years to life. (Id.)
Petitioner timely filed a notice of appeal. On December 21, 2010, the California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, reversed the judgment and remanded the matter to the trial court to hear and determine Petitioner's motion for new trial, though it found no prejudicial error in the trial itself. (Id.) The motion for new trial was held before the trial judge, and the judge modified the amount of restitution but reinstated the judgment and sentence. (Pet., Ex. B.) Petitioner appealed to the Fifth District Court of Appeals, and the judgment was affirmed on May 16, 2012. (Id.) Petitioner then filed a petition for review in the California Supreme Court. (Pet., Ex. C.) On August 22, 2012, the petition was summarily denied. (Pet., Ex. D.) Next, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the California Supreme Court. (Pet., Ex. E.) The petition was summarily denied on March 13, 2013. (Pet., Ex. F.)
Petitioner filed the instant federal petition for writ of habeas corpus in this Court on October 17, 2013. The petition presents the following four grounds for relief: (1) The trial court violated federal law when it prohibited Petitioner from presenting evidence that he was frightened during the shooting; (2) The trial court misdescribed the State's burden and deprived Petitioner of his Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial; (3) The State violated Petitioner's federal right to an impartial judge when the state court denied Petitioner's motion to have a new judge decide his motion for new trial; and (4) Self-defense and related jury instructions violated Petitioner's right to present a defense and a fair trial.
Respondent filed an answer to the petition on March 12, 2014. Petitioner filed a traverse on March 21, 2014.
Page 3
A. Prosecution Evidence
The University Village Apartments is a three-story complex on East Barstow near Cedar. It provides housing for students at Fresno State University. The individual apartment units consist of separate sleeping quarters, each with lock on the door, and a common living room/kitchen area. Apartment 126, which is on the ground floor, has four separate bedrooms. As of May 7, 2007, [footnote omitted], Lewis Carrol resided in bedroom A, appellant resided in bedroom B, Rion Spears resided in bedroom C, and Guillermo Meneses resided in bedroom D.About a month before May 7, appellant showed Meneses a gun. Carrol recalled appellant showing him a pistol a couple of times between Christmas and spring break. At one point, appellant told Carrol that he had "gotten jumped" by some Mexicans and hit with a bottle, and that his left eye had been hurt and he could go blind if he were hit there again. As a result, appellant, who was African-American, was not quick to trust Hispanics. However, he and Carrol, who was Native American and Hispanic, had only normal roommate problems that were not attributable to race. Although Carrol never observed appellant to be nervous or have a problem around large groups of people, appellant did not like to be touched. Eyewitness accounts differed as to what took place on May 7. Guillermo Meneses— Meneses was in his room, studying, at approximately 11:00 p.m. Taking a break, he went into Carrol's room to play video games. He saw Brant Daniels, Rodrick Buycks, Drew Pfeiff, Kodi Shiflett, and a couple of other people walk in through the hallway. At no time did Meneses see a weapon in any of their hands. The group headed toward appellant's room, and Daniels and Buycks started talking to appellant. The conversation quickly escalated into a confrontation in the hallway in front of appellant's room. Shiflett and Pfeiff were kind of in the back, and, when Meneses stepped out of Carrol's room, Pfeiff told him that they thought appellant had stolen a PlayStation 2 console. Daniels and Buycks accused appellant of taking the console; appellant denied it. This went back and forth a few times near the door to appellant's room. Meneses saw Daniels enter appellant's bedroom, and appellant loudly told him to get out. At some point,
Page 4
Buycks approached appellant; Daniels, who was trying to be the peacemaker, physically touched appellant in an attempt to create space between the two. He told Buycks, "'calm down, he's going to give it to us,'" although Meneses had never heard appellant admit he took the PlayStation. Meneses did not recall any other touching of appellant or any threatening gestures such as balling up or pounding of fists, although at some point he heard Daniels say to appellant that appellant had better tell them where the PlayStation was. It did not appear to Meneses that anyone was under the influence of alcohol, and he did not see anyone force any doors.Daniels exited appellant's room, and the group walked toward the kitchen and the door. Appellant told the group more than once to get out of his house. It seemed to Meneses that the four visitors were starting to walk out. Daniels told appellant that appellant had better give them a call when he got the PlayStation 2 back. As the four were on their way out, Meneses saw a gun in appellant's hand. Those in the group asked if he were serious and told him to put it away. They kept arguing, and appellant fired a warning shot at the ground. When the group moved back into the kitchen, and prior to seeing the gun, Meneses activated his cell phone's video recorder because he thought there was going to be a fight. He recorded 15 seconds, which was all his phone allowed. The video was played for the jury. Loud arguing and the first shot can be heard on the recording, which we have viewed. At the time, Daniels was by the kitchen counter. Fearing for his own safety, Meneses grabbed Carrol and they locked themselves in Carrol's room. Meneses then heard what sounded like at least four shots and "a bunch of commotion." Meneses could not tell whether it stayed in the room or moved elsewhere. Lewis Carrol— Carrol and Meneses were in Carrol's room at about 11:00 p.m. Someone knocked at the apartment door, but Carrol did not see if appellant opened it. When interviewed by Officer Williams at the apartment complex, Carrol related that five subjects came to the front door and appellant let them in. The conversation started off "real loud," but Carrol did not think anything of it at first. When it stayed loud, however, he and Meneses left the bedroom. Carrol saw appellant arguing with Daniels and Buycks. Shiflett and Pfeiff were also there, as was another male Carrol did not know, but that person left. Daniels and Buycks said they knew appellant took their PlayStation 2, and that he had better give it back. Appellant repeatedly denied having the item. The subject of a stolen PlayStation was a surprise to Carrol, but he remembered hearing appellant talking on the phone and asking somebody for some cords. According to Carrol, appellant had his own Playstation before the first week of May. The argument moved to the hallway by appellant's room. Either Daniels or Buycks started to go into appellant's room, and
Page 5
appellant said the person was not about to go through appellant's things. When Daniels and Buycks said they just wanted to get the PlayStation back, appellant said he did not have it and did not know what they were talking about. Carrol believed Daniels went in appellant's room and appellant followed him inside. Pfeiff, who was acting normally, told Carrol they knew appellant had the PlayStation. Carrol was ready to take appellant's side if things got violent....The argument seemed most intense between appellant and Buycks. They were kind of coming at each other, and Daniels, who was in the doorway to but a little outside of appellant's room, pushed appellant sideways into the room. Appellant told Daniels to get off him and not to touch him. To Carrol, Daniels's movement appeared to look to appellant like an aggressive act. Carrol told Officer Williams that there were two main people arguing with appellant, that they were arguing in appellant's bedroom, and that it appeared Daniels was restraining appellant from attacking the third person. Insofar as Carrol could see, however, none of the visitors had a weapon. When the argument moved from appellant's room toward the kitchen, everyone noticed that appellant had a gun in his hand. It was a revolver appellant had previously shown Carrol. Appellant had shown Rion Spears, who also lived in apartment 126, a .22-caliber revolver that held six shots. Spears was aware
To continue reading
Request your trial