Enriquez v. Ludwick, 4:13–cv–00024–RWP
| Decision Date | 16 April 2018 |
| Docket Number | 4:13–cv–00024–RWP |
| Parties | Rosendo ENRIQUEZ, Petitioner, v. Warden Nick LUDWICK, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Iowa |
Gary Dean Dickey, Jr., Dickey & Campbell Law Firm PLC, Des Moines, IA, Petitioner.
Benjamin Milton Parrott, Attorney General of Iowa, Des Moines, IA, for Respondent.
Petitioner Rosendo Enriquez, now represented by counsel, was an inmate of the Iowa Department of Corrections serving a sentence on convictions for drug and firearm offenses in Muscatine County, Iowa. State v. Enriquez , No. 09-1460, 2011 WL 1584114, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Apr. 27, 2011). He is now on parole,1 and his tentative discharge date is December 3, 2033. Iowa Dep't of Corr., Offender Information , https://doc.iowa.gov/offender/view/1105354 (last visited Apr. 10, 2018).
Enriquez seeks relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for a violation of his federal Sixth Amendment right, arguing his trial and appellate counsel performed below prevailing professional norms by failing to argue the Iowa Constitution invalidated a search by officers at his home.2 Enriquez further argues that if counsel had challenged the search based on the Iowa Constitution instead of the federal Fourth Amendment, the evidence would have been suppressed, therefore he was prejudiced by counsel's performance. Pet'r's Br., ECF No. 34.
The Court stayed this case for over two years while Enriquez exhausted his state remedies, which are now complete. The matter is ready for ruling. For the following reasons, the Court will deny the petition, dismiss the case, and grant a Certificate of Appealability.
The chronology of events is important to the question of counsel's performance, so the Court sets them out in detail. Enriquez's cohabitant, Stephanie Ryder, was on probation in June 2008. Enriquez , 2011 WL 1584114, at *1. As part of her probation, she agreed to "submit my person, property, place of residence, vehicle, [and] personal effects to search at any time, with or without a search warrant, warrant of arrest or reasonable cause by any probation/parole officer or law enforcement officer." Id. ; ECF No. 31–7 at 54–56.3 Ryder's probation officer learned of possible drug trafficking and firearms in Ryder's home. Enriquez , 2011 WL 1584114, at *1.
On June 30, 2008, Ryder's probation officer and other law enforcement officers went to Ryder's home to do a "home check" under the terms of her probation agreement.4 Id. Ryder allowed the officers into the house.5 Enriquez was in the shower, and when Ryder informed him the officers were present, Enriquez stepped out of the bathroom wearing a towel. He asked to get dressed in the bedroom, and one of the law enforcement officers agreed but said he wanted to accompany Enriquez for safety reasons, and Enriquez refused. Nevertheless, the officer stood outside the bedroom and watched through a two-and-a-half-inch crack in the accordion-style door to the bedroom. The officer "observed Enriquez go to the closet, reach ‘mid-level’ or ‘up above’ with both of his hands and ‘fumble[ ] with’ or ‘mess[ ] with’ something." Id. Enriquez did not remove anything from the closet. Later, the officer searched the closet where he saw Enriquez moving, and the officer "discovered a large plastic bag tucked in clothing." Inside were illegal drugs. On the dresser was a silencer. Id. The officers stopped the search, got a warrant, and after searching pursuant to the warrant, found a handgun in the same closet, plus ammunition in another "cabinet near the kitchen or in the hall closet." Id.
Enriquez and Ryder were charged with drug and firearm crimes. ECF No. 31–5 at 6–7. On September 24, 2008, Enriquez filed a motion to suppress, arguing he did not consent to the warrantless search of his home. He relied on the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, but he did not rely on article I, section 8 of the Iowa Constitution. ECF No. 31–5 at 11–14. At first, the trial court granted the motion to suppress because Enriquez did not consent. ECF No. 31–5 at 39–42. On November 7, 2008, the trial court reconsidered and denied the motion to suppress because Ryder's probation agreement justified the search, no private area of Enriquez's was searched, Enriquez did not expressly object, and the drugs were in plain view during the search. ECF No. 31–5 at 46–48; Enriquez , 2011 WL 1584114 at *2. Enriquez asked the trial court to reconsider based on a recently decided case, State v. Brandon , 755 N.W.2d 548, 552 (Iowa Ct. App. 2008), arguing that the officers did not have Enriquez's consent to search. ECF No. 31–5 at 49–53. The decision in Brandon was not based on the Iowa Constitution, but rather was based on an interpretation of a cohabitant's rights under the Fourth Amendment in Georgia v. Randolph , 547 U.S. 103, 126 S.Ct. 1515, 164 L.Ed.2d 208 (2006). See Brandon , 755 N.W.2d at 551–52. The trial court denied the motion to reconsider. ECF No. 31–5 at 55.
Enriquez sought a stay of the criminal case and discretionary review of the order denying his motion to suppress. ECF No. 31–5 at 56–61. The application for stay and review did not specifically assert a challenge under the Iowa Constitution. Id. at 56–60. In resisting the application, the State pointed out, "The district court noted that the residential search was valid under Ryder's probation agreement and Enriquez did not expressly object to the search so as to invoke a situation similar to that examined in Georgia v. Randolph ()." ECF No. 31–6 at 88 (citation omitted). The Iowa Supreme Court denied the application for discretionary review on February 19, 2009. ECF No. 31–6 at 90.
At the time the motion to suppress issue was being litigated in Enriquez's case, his main argument was he did not consent to the search, and trial counsel was aware of cases on appeal that resulted in the December 17, 2010 decision in State v. Ochoa , 792 N.W.2d 260 (Iowa 2010). See ECF No. 31–14 at 24. In Ochoa , the defendant, a parolee, argued that, under the Iowa Constitution, the officers could not conduct a warrantless, suspicionless search of his hotel room based simply on his parole agreement that authorized law enforcement officers to search the parolee's residence "at any time and for any reason." Ochoa , 792 N.W.2d at 262. During postconviction proceedings in Enriquez's case, trial counsel testified about pending appeals "more or less on that same issue, probation/parole agreements, and that it was you know a good opportunity to try to see if they would take our case into consideration."6 Pet'r's Br. 10 (citing PCR Trial Tr. 20). During the postconviction proceedings, trial counsel was asked, "you were aware of cases being prepared to be brought—brought before the Iowa Supreme Court and Court of Appeals which apparently resulted in the Ochoa decision?" ECF No. 31–14 at 24. Trial counsel answered:
Id. at 24–25. Trial counsel withdrew once the direct appeal was filed. Id. at 24–25.
In an April 30, 2009 order allowing the trials of Enriquez and Ryder to be severed and denying Enriquez's request for change of venue, the trial court noted that the search was done based on Ryder's probation supervision and reports of drug sales at the residence. ECF No. 31–6 at 93–96. It further noted that officers entered the residence based on information implicating Enriquez in a murder. ECF No. 31–6 at 93–96.
On July 17, 2009, the Iowa Supreme Court issued State v. Effler , 769 N.W.2d 880 (Iowa 2009). In Effler , the defendant claimed his lawyer provided ineffective assistance by failing to challenge, under the Iowa Constitution, the admission of incriminating statements he made during an interrogation. Id. at 882. The conviction was affirmed by operation of law because the Iowa Supreme Court was equally divided on the issue. Id. at 884. Three of the Iowa Supreme Court Justices believed the relevant portions of the Iowa Constitution did not provide relief to the defendant. Id. at 890. Three others disagreed. Justice Appel, concurring specially, wrote:
separately to emphasize the need for criminal counsel to explore thoroughly the possibility that this court will approach the Iowa Constitution in a different fashion than the United States Supreme Court approaches parallel provisions of the Federal Constitution. Indeed, this case demonstrates why this court should exercise its independent judgment under the Iowa Constitution and not necessarily follow the majority of the United States Supreme Court.
Id. at 894 (Appel, J., concurring) (emphasis added). "When a defendant has a potential claim under both the United States and Iowa Constitutions," Justice Appel wrote, "counsel should ordinarily scour these sources to determine if there is a solid legal basis for asserting an independent interpretation of the Iowa Constitution which would be more beneficial to the accused than is available under the Federal Constitution. Id. at 895.
On July 20, 2009, three days after Effler was issued, Enriquez went to trial. ECF No. 31–7 at 1. The jury found Enriquez guilty, and judgment was entered against him. Id. at 62–64.
Enriquez appealed on September 4, 2009. ECF No. 31–7 at 65. In his appellate brief, dated nearly a year later, August 20, 2010, Enriquez argued, among other things, that the trial court erred in overruling his motion to suppress evidence. ECF No. 31–8 at 7. He further argued that counsel provided ineffective assistance, but his argument did not rely...
To continue reading
Request your trial