Contreras-Armas v. Garrett

• Decision Date: 28 February 2023
• Docket Number: 3:18-cv-00387-HDM-CSD
• Parties: CESAR CONTRERAS-ARMAS, Petitioner, v. TIM GARRETT,[1] et al., Respondents.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Nevada

1

CESAR CONTRERAS-ARMAS, Petitioner, v. TIM GARRETT,^[1] et al., Respondents.

No. 3:18-cv-00387-HDM-CSD

United States District Court, D. Nevada

February 28, 2023

ORDER

HOWARD D. MCKIBBEN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Petitioner Cesar Contreras-Armas (“Petitioner” or “Contreras-Armas”) filed a counseled second amended petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C § 2254. (ECF No. 28 (“Petition”).) This matter is before this Court for adjudication of the merits of the remaining grounds in the Petition.^[2] For the reasons discussed below, this Court denies the Petition and a certificate of appealability.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual background^[3]

On October 12, 2013, Andrew Amezcua and his girlfriend, Carolina Hernandez, were walking outside when they saw Contreras-Armas and a few other individuals walking towards them. (ECF No. 14-5 at 5-8.) Contreras-Armas asked Amezcua, “Do you guys gang bang?” (Id. at 8.) Amezcua indicated that he was in the Southwest Gang. (Id.) Contreras-Armas, who was a member of the 18th Street Gang, and Amezcua started to fight, and Contreras-Armas eventually stabbed Amezcua four times with a knife. (Id. at 8-9, 20.) Contreras-Armas then took Amezcua's cell phone and $5 from Hernandez before leaving. (Id. at 9.) Amezcua later died as a result of his injuries, and his autopsy revealed stab wounds to the heart and skull. (Id. at 20.) At the time of the stabbing, Contreras-Armas was 2.5 months away from turning 18 years old. (See ECF No. 17-1.)

B. Procedural background

Contreras-Armas was charged with open murder with the use of a deadly weapon and robbery. (ECF No. 36-3.) Following negotiations with the prosecution, Contreras-Armas pleaded guilty to second-degree murder and robbery. (ECF No. 38-4.) Contreras-Armas was sentenced to 36 to 90 months for the robbery conviction to run consecutive to his sentence of life with the possibility of parole after 10 years for the second-degree murder conviction plus a consecutive sentence of 72 to 180 months for the deadly weapon enhancement. (ECF No. 38-15.) Contreras-Armas did not file a direct appeal.

Contreras-Armas filed a post-conviction petition for writ of habeas corpus in state court. (See ECF No. 41-18 at 2.) The state court granted Contreras-Armas' direct appeal deprivation claim but denied his remaining claims. (Id.) Contreras-Armas filed an appeal of his judgment of conviction pursuant to Nevada Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(c).^[4] (ECF No. 40-20.) The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed Contreras-Armas' judgment of conviction. (ECF No. 40-20.) Contreras-Armas filed a second post-conviction petition for writ of habeas corpus in state court, but the state court dismissed it as procedurally barred. (ECF No. 41-18.) The Nevada Court of Appeals affirmed the denial, explaining that (1) Contreras-Armas' second post-conviction petition was successive and (2) Contreras-Armas did not appeal the denial of his first post-conviction petition. (Id.)

Contreras-Armas filed a pro se federal habeas petition, a counseled first-amended petition, and a counseled second-amended petition. (ECF Nos. 6, 12, 27.) Respondents moved to dismiss the second-amended petition, and this Court granted the motion, in part, finding (1) that ground 2 lacked merit and (2) grounds 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 are technically exhausted, deferring consideration on whether Contreras-Armas can demonstrate cause and prejudice to overcome the procedural default until after the filing of an answer and reply. (ECF Nos. 35, 61.) Respondents answered the second-amended petition, and Contreras-Armas replied. (ECF Nos. 78, 81.)

II. GOVERNING STANDARD OF REVIEW

28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) sets forth the standard of review generally applicable in habeas corpus cases under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”):

An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings unless the adjudication of the claim-

(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.

A state court decision is contrary to clearly established Supreme Court precedent, within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2254, “if the state court applies a rule that contradicts the governing law set forth in [the Supreme Court's] cases” or “if the state court confronts a set of facts that are materially indistinguishable from a decision of [the Supreme] Court.” Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 73 (2003) (quoting Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 405-06 (2000), and citing Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685, 694 (2002)). A state court decision is an unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court precedent within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) “if the state court identifies the correct governing legal principle from [the Supreme] Court's decisions but unreasonably applies that principle to the facts of the prisoner's case.” Id. at 75 (quoting Williams, 529 U.S. at 413). “The ‘unreasonable application' clause requires the state court decision to be more than incorrect or erroneous. The state court's application of clearly established law must be objectively unreasonable.” Id. (quoting Williams, 529 U.S. at 409-10) (internal citation omitted).

The Supreme Court has instructed that “[a] state court's determination that a claim lacks merit precludes federal habeas relief so long as ‘fairminded jurists could disagree' on the correctness of the state court's decision.” Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 101 (2011) (citing Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541 U.S. 652, 664 (2004)). The Supreme Court has stated “that even a strong case for relief does not mean the state court's contrary conclusion was unreasonable.” Id. at 102 (citing Lockyer, 538 U.S. at 75); see also Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170, 181 (2011) (describing the standard as a “difficult to meet” and “highly deferential standard for evaluating state-court rulings, which demands that state-court decisions be given the benefit of the doubt” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)).

III. DISCUSSION

A. Ground 1-sentencing court relied on inadmissible evidence

In ground 1, Contreras-Armas alleges that the sentencing court's reliance on inadmissible, suspect evidence at his sentencing hearing deprived him of his right to due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. (ECF No. 28 at 5.) Specifically, Contreras-Armas alleges that the sentencing court relied on the following inadmissible evidence: his juvenile adjudications, allegations that he had stolen a car, inappropriate comments by Officer Lopez, statements by Officer Hallert concerning an incident from five years earlier, hearsay about the stealing of an MP3 player, and his performance at a Nevada youth training center. (Id. at 5-6.)

1. Background information

During Contreras-Armas' sentencing hearing, Christopher Toles, Contreras-Armas' case manager for the six months he was at the China Spring Youth Camp, testified that Contreras-Armas was 15 years old when he was ordered by a court to the facility. (ECF No. 14-5 at 32-33, 35-36.) Contreras-Armas “made it through the first three phases of the program,” but because “he could not meet the honor stage,” he did not successfully complete the program. (Id. at 39.) A week after Contreras-Armas' release from China Springs, Contreras-Armas' probation officer informed Toles that Contreras-Armas “had taken off,” absconding from probation. (Id. at 40.)

Matthew Elder testified that Contreras-Armas was committed to the Caliente Youth Center in February 2012. (Id. at 45.) Following Contreras-Armas' release from Caliente on October 25, 2012, Elder was his youth parole counselor. (Id. at 44-45.) Elder testified that Contreras-Armas “absconded from supervision after a week.” (Id. at 46-47.) Contreras-Armas “was arrested about three weeks later for obstructing/resisting and possession of alcohol,” placed on house arrest, and then released on November 25, 2012. (Id. at 47.) Following that release, Contreras-Armas again “absconds less than a week later.” (Id.) Contreras-Armas was arrested on January 3, 2013, “for burglary, parole violation, runaway, parole violation associating with known gang members.” (Id.) At this point, Contreras-Armas was committed to the Nevada Youth Training Center for seven months. (Id. at 48.) Contreras-Armas then went to Transformations Independent Living where he lived for four weeks before absconding again. (Id. at 49-50.) It was during this time that Contreras- Armas killed Amezcua. (Id. at 50.) Contreras-Armas told Elder that “he had significant ties to the gang, and referenced that it would be difficult for him to leave that lifestyle.” (Id.)

Officer Gerald Hallert testified that on March 14, 2009, he investigated a robbery of an MP3 player from a 15-year-old girl. (Id. at 51-52.) Contreras-Armas, who was 13 or 14 years old at the time, was identified as one of the robbers. (Id. at 53.) Contreras-Armas admitted to the robbery. (Id. at 53-54.)

Officer Juan Lopez testified that on November 13, 2012, he investigated a robbery of a gang member who stated that he was attacked by a member of the 18th street gang and was robbed of his cell phone, gold chain, and red bandana. (Id. at 56, 59-61.) The attacking gang member was later identified to be Contreras-Armas. (Id. at 62.) Contreras-Armas admitted to the robbery, explaining his motivation was the victim's gang affiliation. (Id. at...