Flores v. Hill

• Decision Date: 27 January 2014
• Docket Number: Case No. 1:13-cv-00738-SAB-HC
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
• Parties: LUIS ALEJANDRO FLORES, Petitioner, v. RICK HILL, Warden, Respondent.

LUIS ALEJANDRO FLORES, Petitioner, v. RICK HILL, Warden, Respondent.

Case No. 1:13-cv-00738-SAB-HC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Dated: January 27, 2014

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT

OF HABEAS CORPUS

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT

TO ENTER JUDGMENT AND

TERMINATE CASE

ORDER DECLINING ISSUANCE OF

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254. The parties have voluntarily consented to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

I.BACKGROUND

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 Merced, following his conviction by jury trial on April 23, 2010, of second degree murder (Cal. Penal Code § 187), and having personally used a deadly or dangerous weapon during commission of the offense (Cal. Penal Code § 12022(b)). On September 1, 2010, Petitioner was sentenced to serve a prison term of 16 years-to-life.

Petitioner timely filed a notice of appeal. On February 29, 2012, the California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District ("Fifth DCA"), affirmed the judgment. On March 12, 2012, Petitioner filed a petition for rehearing in the Fifth DCA. The petition was denied on March 27, 2012. On April 9, 2012, Petitioner filed a petition for review in the California Supreme Court. The petition was summarily denied on May 16, 2012.

On May 17, 2013, Petitioner filed the instant federal habeas petition in this Court. As his sole claim for relief, Petitioner alleges his Sixth Amendment right to present a defense was violated when the trial court failed to instruct the jury sua sponte on unconsciousness. On September 20, 2013, Respondent filed an answer to the petition. On December 30, 2013, Petitioner filed a traverse.

II.STATEMENT OF FACTS¹

INTRODUCTION

Sometime between November 4 and 6, 2005, appellant/defendant Luis Alejandro Flores (defendant) cut the throat of his live-in girlfriend, Jackie Lua (Jackie), placed her on a bed in their apartment, and then slit his own throat and lay next to her. He left behind notes indicating that he did it "for love." Jackie bled to death. Defendant survived and dialed 911 for help. As paramedics treated the knife wound to his throat, defendant indicated he had cut Jackie's throat and then his own.

Defendant was charged with the first degree murder of Jackie (Pen.Code § 187), with the special allegation that he personally used a dangerous or deadly weapon, a knife (§ 12022, subd. (b)). After a lengthy jury trial, defendant was found not guilty of first degree murder, but guilty of the lesser included offense of second degree murder, and the special allegation was found true. Defendant was sentenced to 15 years to life plus one year for the special allegation.

On appeal, defendant contends the court had a sua sponte duty to instruct the jury on unconsciousness as a complete defense to murder. Defendant also argues that his constitutional rights were violated when the court conducted a restitution hearing in his absence. We will affirm.

FACTS

In 2004, defendant met Jackie and they started dating. Defendant was 28 years oldand worked as a substitute teacher in Winton. Jackie was 20 years old. During the next year, they broke up three or four times, but they reconciled on each occasion and lived together. Around October 2005, they moved into a one-bedroom apartment on K Street in Merced.

Prescilla Guerrero, Jackie's close friend, testified that she was with Jackie on occasions when defendant would call her. Jackie said defendant called "just to check up on her, I guess, see what she's doing." Guerrero testified that about one week before the homicide, Jackie said that "she didn't want to be with [defendant] anymore, that she just wanted to break up on good terms with him." About two days before the homicide, Guerrero and Jackie had lunch, and Jackie received a cell phone call from defendant. Guerrero could hear defendant yelling over the phone. Based on Jackie's responses, Guerrero believed defendant was "upset that she had left and was yelling at her."

Roberto Lua, Jr. (Robert), Jackie's brother, testified that defendant and Jackie regularly took care of his 18-month old child when he had weekend custody, and the child was always well-cared for. Robert did not know about any violence between defendant and Jackie. Robert testified about a conversation he had with Jackie just a few days before the homicide. Jackie said that she was going to end her relationship with defendant because "they weren't getting along, and she didn't want to go with him no [sic] more."

Ryan Natasha Zurney, the mother of Robert's child, testified that when Jackie started to date defendant, "[s]he wasn't really allowed to talk to anybody, any of her friends too often." Jackie told Zurney that defendant did not like her talking to certain people. About two months before the homicide, Jackie told Zurney about an incident when defendant and Jackie argued in a car. Jackie said that defendant "was driving extremely fast down Bear Creek ... and he was threatening if he left her that he would drive the car into the creek and kill them both."

Zurney testified that Jackie never said she was afraid of defendant. On one or two occasions, however, Jackie said that defendant threatened to kill himself if she ever left him. Zurney believed Jackie was afraid of defendant once or twice, "because there were a couple of times where she would catch him driving by her house many times while they were split up." A police detective testified he interview[ed] Zurney after the homicide, and Zurney never said that Jackie was afraid of defendant.

Roberto Lua, Sr. (Mr. Lua), the father of Jackie and Roberto Jr., testified that about five months before the homicide, defendant took Jackie to Mexico, though she did not want to go. Mr. Lua believed defendant kidnapped her. Jackie was afraid because they were so far from home, and she feared defendant would do something to her. After they returned, Jackie told her father that they stayed at a hotel and had an argument by the balcony. Jackie said defendant "picked her up and held her over the balcony and threatened ... to drop[ ] her if she would leave him." A few weeks later, Mr. Lua confronted defendant about this incident. Defendant said "they were just playing around." Jackie was present during this conversation and just smiled. Mr. Lua felt Jackie did not want to disagree with defendant.

Mr. Lua testified that a couple of months before the homicide, Jackie told him about the incident when she argued with defendant in the car. Jackie said defendant accelerated the car and, as they reached the creek, defendant said, "'If you leave me, I'll kill myself. I'll go straight to the canal.'" Jackie said thatdefendant threatened to kill himself every time they argued. About a week before the homicide, Jackie told her father that they argued, and defendant again threatened to kill himself. Mr. Lua warned Jackie about defendant, but Jackie said "'there's no way he would do such a thing.... He loves me, and I love him.'"

On Thursday, November 3, 2005, defendant called his mother and wished her a happy birthday. They planned to visit with each other on Saturday, November 5, 2005, but she never heard from him that day.

On Saturday, November 5, 2005, defendant and Jackie picked up Robert's 18-month old baby to watch the child for the weekend, as they had planned. Robert called them a few times to check on the baby, and there were no known problems.

The 911 call

Around 2:00 a.m. on Sunday, November 6, 2005, the Merced Police Department received a 911 call from the apartment where defendant and Jackie lived. The operator could only hear someone breathing in the background, but no one spoke or responded to the operator's questions.

At 2:02 a.m., Merced Police Detective Luis Solis arrived at the apartment. Solis entered through the unlocked front door. Solis found defendant and Jackie lying next to each other on a fold-out bed in the living room. The bed was extremely bloody, and defendant and Jackie were covered in both dry and fresh blood.

Jackie's throat had been severely cut with a knife. There were jagged edges on her neck, consistent with more than one cutting motion. She was not breathing and did not have a pulse. It appeared she had bled to death.

Defendant also had a throat wound, and it appeared his throat had been cut once. He was barely breathing. His eyes were closed, but Solis saw involuntary eyelid tremors. There were burn marks on defendant's right cheek, consistent with being inflicted from the apartment's electric stove coils. There were also wounds on his wrist. There was a cordless telephone under defendant's lower body.

One officer later described the apartment as one of the "bloodiest crime scenes" he had ever seen. There was blood all over the kitchen counters, walls, and on the floor. There were bloody footprints on the kitchen floor, indicating that someone had walked through the blood. There was blood in the bathroom sink and floor, and on the hallway and living room walls.

There were two Cutco-brand knives at the top of the fold-out bed. The knives were just above the pillows, a couple of feet away from the heads of defendant and Jackie. One knife was large, and the other was a small paring knife. The small knife was on top of the large knife.

Robert's baby was found sleeping in the back bedroom. The child was not injured.

The notes

There were three notes in the apartment, all of which were covered with blood. One note was on the floor and stated: "'Jackie Lua with me till death. I said it always.'" The other note was on a table near the fold-out bed and stated: "'I did it for love. Forgive me, God. Mom, I love you with all my heart, Luis,'" and "'Brother, I love you too.'" Both notes appeared to have been written by the sameperson,

...