Catlin v. Davis
| Decision Date | 16 December 2019 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 1:07-cv-01466-LJO-SAB |
| Parties | STEVEN CATLIN, Petitioner, v. RON DAVIS, Warden of San Quentin State Prison, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California |
DEATH PENALTY CASE
(1) DENYING CLAIMS 1-68; (2) DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR EVIDENTIARY DEVELOPMENT, RECORD EXPANSION AND EVIDENTIARY HEARING, (3) DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, and (4) ISSUING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY FOR CLAIMS 10, 11, 26(A), 35(A), 35(B), 35(C), and 35(F)
Petitioner Steven David Catlin (hereinafter "Petitioner") is a state prisoner, sentenced to death, proceeding with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He is represented in this action by appointed counsel Saor Stetler and Richard Novak.
Respondent Ron Davis (hereinafter "Respondent") is named as Warden of San Quentin StatePrison. He is represented in this action by supervising deputy attorney general Kenneth Sokoler.
Before the court for decision are (i) the petition for writ of habeas corpus filed in this proceeding on September 24, 2008 and its claims 1-68 including subclaims,2 and (ii) Petitioner's motion for evidentiary development, expansion of the record to include post-conviction proceedings pursuant to Penal Code section 1054.9,3 and for evidentiary hearing.4
Having carefully reviewed the parties' filings and the relevant case law and for the reasons set out below, the undersigned finds that the petition for writ of habeas corpus and all claims therein shall be denied, the motion for evidentiary development, expansion of the records, and evidentiary hearing shall be denied, and certificate of appealability shall issue only for claims 10, 11, 26(A), 5(A), 35(B), 35(C), and 35(F).
Petitioner was convicted of murdering his fourth wife, Joyce Catlin, a mother of eight children (hereinafter "Joyce"), his fifth wife, Glenna Catlin, (hereinafter "Glenna"), and his adoptive mother, Martha Catlin, (hereinafter "Martha") by poisoning them with the herbicide paraquat. Joyce's murder occurred in 1976. The murders of Glenna and Martha occurred in 1984.
The conviction for the first-degree murder of Glenna was rendered in 1986 in Monterey County Superior Court (following a change of venue from Fresno County Superior Court) for which Petitioner was sentenced to life without parole (hereinafter "LWOP"), with judgment entered thereon. The convictions for the first-degree murders of Joyce and Martha were rendered in 1990 in Kern County Superior Court and resulted in sentences of LWOP and death respectively, with judgment entered thereon.
This habeas corpus proceeding involves only the Kern County judgment.
Petitioner is currently in the custody of the California Department of Corrections andRehabilitation pursuant to July 6, 1990 entry of judgment of the Superior Court of California, County of Kern imposing the death sentence following his conviction following jury trial in Kern County Superior Court case number 30594.5 (CT 2079.) The conviction was affirmed by the California Supreme Court on automatic appeal. People v. Catlin, 26 Cal.4th 81 (2001). The United States Supreme Court denied petitioner's writ for certiorari on April 1, 2002. Catlin v. California, 535 U.S. 976 (2002).
Petitioner was arrested on February 14, 1985 (RT 3483-86). On December 23, 1985, Petitioner was charged by information filed in Kern County, with the 1976 murder Joyce (Penal Code § 187) and the 1984 murder of Martha Catlin (Penal Code § 187). (CT 1348-50.) It was alleged that the murder of Martha Catlin was committed for financial gain (Penal Code § 190.2(a)(1)), that the murder was intentionally committed by the administration of poison (Penal Code § 190.2(a)(19)), and that Petitioner was convicted of more than one offense of murder in that proceeding (Penal Code § 190.2(a)(3)). (Id.)
On September 7, 1988, the information was amended to include an allegation that Petitioner had been convicted in 1986 in Monterey County of the 1984 first-degree murder of Glenna Catlin (Penal Code § 190.2(a)(2)). (CT 1777.) Count I of the amended information charged Petitioner with first-degree murder of Joyce and Count II charged petitioner with the first-degree murder of Martha. (Id.) Additionally, the amended information alleged four special circumstances in connection with Count II, i.e. (i) the murder was carried out for financial gain within the meaning of Penal Code section 190.2(a)(1); (ii) Petitioner was charged with committing more than one murder in the first or second-degree within the meaning of Penal Code section 190.2(a)(3); (iii) Petitioner intentionally killed the victim by administration of poison (i.e., the herbicide paraquat) within the meaning of Penal Code section 190.2(a)(19); and (iv) Petitioner had previously been convicted of the first-degree murder of Glenna within the meaning of Penal Code section 190.2(a)(2) and sentenced to life without parole in 1986.6 (See 1SHCP Ex. 102 at 1159; 1SHCP Ex. 100 at 409.)
Petitioner's Kern County trial began on April 23, 1990. Pursuant to statute, the jury was not informed of the fourth alleged special circumstance, concerning a prior murder conviction. On June 1, 1990, the jury found Petitioner guilty of murder in the first-degree on both Counts I and II and found the first three special circumstances to be true. (CT 2028-2030.) Petitioner then admitted his prior (June 16, 1986) conviction for the first-degree murder of Glenna and the jury was informed that Petitioner had stipulated to the truth of the fourth (prior murder conviction) special circumstance. (CT 2025.)
On June 5, 1990, the penalty phase began before the same jury that heard the guilt phase. (CT 2034.)
On June 6, 1990, the jury returned sentencing verdicts of LWOP for the murder of Joyce and death for the murder of Martha. (CT 2074-75.) The trial court then imposed those sentences. (CT 2079-2082.)
On July 6, 1990, the trial court denied petitioner's motion for new trial and modification of death penalty verdict and entered judgment upon the jury's verdicts. (CT 2079-85.)
In May of 1993, attorneys Horace Freedman and Jeffrey Schwartz were appointed by the California Supreme Court to represent Petitioner on direct appeal and collateral review. In March of 2000, the California Supreme Court ordered that Freedman represent Petitioner solely in the direct appeal and that Schwartz represent Petitioner solely in the habeas proceeding.
On March 27, 1998, petitioner filed his automatic appeal with the California Supreme Court. On July 16, 2001; that court affirmed the judgment and sentence on direct appeal. People v. Catlin, 26 Cal. 4th 81 (2001). On September 26, 2001, the California Supreme Court denied the petition for rehearing. Id., as modified, (2001) (unpub.).
Petition for writ of certiorari was denied by the United States Supreme Court on April 1, 2002. Catlin v. California, 535 U.S. 976 (2002).
On August 9, 2000, petitioner filed his first petition for writ of habeas corpus with the California Supreme Court. In re Catlin, California Supreme Court Case No. S090636. On September 25, 2007, the California Supreme Court summarily denied the first petition for writ of habeas corpus without issuing and order to show cause, stating that:
In re Catlin, California Supreme Court Case No. S090636.
On October 5, 2007, Petitioner began these federal proceedings. On November 2, 2007, the Court appointed attorneys Lynne Coffin and Saor Stetler to represent Petitioner. The instant federal petition was filed on September 24, 2008.
On October 24, 2008, respondent filed his answer asserting affirmative defenses, admitting certain jurisdictional and preliminary allegations, asserting procedural defenses, and denying all claims.
On April 15, 2009, the Court ordered these proceedings held in abeyance pursuant to Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 277 (2005), while Petitioner completed exhaustion in state court. In re Catlin, California Supreme Court Case No. S173793.
On June 15, 2009, Petitioner filed his second (exhaustion) state habeas petition. On March 27, 2013, the California Supreme Court summarily denied the second petition for writ of habeas corpus without issuing and order to show cause, stating that:
To continue reading
Request your trial