Garcia v. Bartkowski

• Decision Date: 27 February 2015
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 11-3689 (DRD)
• Parties: AGUSTIN GARCIA, Petitioner, v. GREG BARTKOWSKI, Respondents.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey

AGUSTIN GARCIA, Petitioner, v. GREG BARTKOWSKI, Respondents.

Civil Action No. 11-3689 (DRD)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

February 27, 2015

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

OPINION

APPEARANCES:

AGUSTIN GARCIA, #822642B

New Jersey State Prison

P.O. Box 861

Trenton, New Jersey 08625

Petitioner Pro Se

ANNMARIE COZZI, ASSISTANT PROSECUTOR

BERGEN COUNTY PROSECUTOR

10 Main Street

Hackensack, New Jersey 07601

Attorneys for Respondents

Debevoise, Senior U.S. District Judge

Agustin Garcia filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging a judgment of conviction filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Bergen County, on February 1, 2002, and amended on May 13, 2004, after a jury found him guilty of the murder of Gladys Ricart, his former girlfriend, and related charges. The State filed an Answer limited to the statute of limitations and Garcia filed several documents in opposition. After carefully reviewing the arguments of the parties and the state court record, this Court will deny habeas relief as time barred and decline to issue a certificate of appealability.

I. BACKGROUND

A. The Crime

The Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey outlined the facts as follows:

The convictions arose out of an incident in which defendant appeared at his former girlfriend's wedding as an uninvited guest and shot and killed her at close range in the presence of witnesses, including children. The shooting was captured by the wedding videographer on high resolution video tape, which was copied exactly by Ridgefield Police Lieutenant David Cassirer to a VHS tape for viewing in court. Contrary to what the tape revealed, defendant testified that after he entered the bride's house where the wedding was being held, her brother and others attacked him, he reached for his gun to protect himself, and at some point during the struggle he blacked out and learned that the bride had been killed. Defendant also claimed that upon learning of the bride's death, he stated he wanted to kill himself. After the final shot, defendant was restrained when he attempted to reload the gun.

State v. Garcia, 2009 WL 3808269 at *1 (N.J. Super. Ct., App. Div., Nov. 6, 2009).

B. The State Court Proceedings

On February 1, 2002, the trial judge sentenced Garcia to life in prison, with 30 years of parole ineligibility for murder, a consecutive four-year term for third-degree unlawful possession of a weapon, and two concurrent four-year terms for endangering the welfare of a child. Garcia appealed. On May 11, 2001, the Appellate Division affirmed the convictions and sentences imposed on the murder and weapons offenses, but reversed the convictions for endangering the welfare of a child. (ECF No. 23-2.) On May 13, 2004, the trial court filed an amended judgment of conviction. The New Jersey Supreme Court denied certification on September 10, 2004. See State v. Garcia, 181 N.J. 545 (2004).

The parties dispute the date on which Garcia filed his first petition for post-conviction relief in the trial court. Garcia maintains that he filed it on January 3, 2005, the date on his cover letter addressed to the trial court. (ECF No. 23-6 at 1.) Respondent contends that the filing date isMay 13, 2005, the date of the trial court's date stamp on the cover letter and on the first page of the post-conviction relief petition. (ECF No. 23-6 at 1, 2.) On May 4, 2007, the trial court denied the first petition for post-conviction relief on the merits, without conducting an evidentiary hearing. See State v. Garcia, 2009 WL 3808269 at *1 (N.J. Super. Ct., App. Div., Nov. 6, 2009). Garcia appealed, and on November 6, 2009, the Appellate Division affirmed. Id. On June 21, 2010, the New Jersey Supreme Court denied certification. See State v. Garcia, 202 N.J. 348 (2010).

Garcia filed his second petition for post-conviction relief ("PCR") on April 15, 2008. See State v. Garcia, 2011 WL 3516933 (N.J. Super. Ct., App. Div., Aug. 12, 2011). On February 17, 2010, the trial court denied relief without conducting an evidentiary hearing. On August 12, 2011, the Appellate Division affirmed on the ground that the second PCR application was untimely under New Jersey Court Rules. Id. The New Jersey Supreme Court denied certification on March 9, 2012. See State v. Garcia, 209 N.J. 596 (2012).

Garcia filed his third PCR petition on November 10, 2010. (ECF No. 23 at 11.) The trial court denied it without an evidentiary hearing on December 15, 2010. See State v. Garcia, 2013 WL 2096208 (N.J. Super. Ct., App. Div., May 16, 2013). Garcia appealed, and on May 16, 2013, the Appellate Division affirmed, finding that the claims were procedurally barred because it did not rely on a new rule of constitutional law, assert that the factual predicate for the relief sought could not have been discovered earlier, or present a prima facie case of ineffective assistance of PCR counsel, as required by New Jersey Court rule 3:22-4(b)(2)(A) - (C). The New Jersey Supreme Court denied certification on February 4, 2014. See State v. Garcia, 209 N.J. 284 (2014).

C. Procedural History of § 2254 Petition

Garcia filed the § 2254 Petition on June 7, 2011, the date on which he signed his application to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 2 at 5.) The Clerk received it on June 20, 2011. The Petition raises the following 15 grounds, which are set forth below verbatim:

Ground One: THE DEFENDANT WAS DENIED HIS RIGHT TO THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL GUARANTEED BY THE SIXTH AMENDMENT OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION[.]

Ground Two: THE STATE COURT[']S ORDERS DENYING DEFENDANT'S PETITIONS MUST BE REVERSED SINCE THE PROSECUTOR TAMPERED WITH AND WITHHELD EVIDENCE. MOREOVER, THE PROSECUTOR CONSCIOUSLY USED A NEVER ENDING PARADE OF PERJURY

TESTIMONIES. ALL IN VIOLATION OF BRADY V. MARYLAND . . . , NAPUE V. ILLINOIS . . . , GIGLIO V. UNITED STATES[.]

Ground Three: THE PROSECUTION FAILED TO DISCLOSE TO THE DEFENSE IMPEACHMENT EVIDENCE MATERIAL TO PETITIONER'S DEFENSE (BLATANT OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE)[.]

Ground Four: DEFENDANT WAS DENIED THE CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHT TO BE TRIED BY FAIR AND IMPARTIAL JURY, GUARANTEE[D] BY THE SIXTH AMENDMENT OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION: (A) THE COURT REFUSED TO ASK SUFFICIENT QUESTIONS OF JURORS TO ALLOW DEFENSE TO ESTABLISH JUROR'S BIAS, PARTICULARLY, CONFRONTED WITH THE FOLLOWING: (1) THE PRESENCE OF 50 PERCENT OF JURY POOL ADMITTING BEFORE TRIAL IN CONTEMPT OF COURT, THAT BASE[D] ON PRETRIAL PUBLICITY THEY HAD ALREADY FORMED THE OPINION THAT DEFENDANT WAS GUILTY; 13T 113-12 TO 113-19; (2) "THEY FORMED THEIR OPINION BASED ON THE PRESS ACCOUNT AND WHATNOT, AND IN ALL OF THEM BY AND LARGE OPINIONS, THE LATTER WHO WERE REHABILITATED BY THE COURT. THE OPINION WAS HE WAS GUILTY. NOBODY HAS COME IN TO EXPRESS THAT HE'S INNOCENT OR WRONGLY ACCUSED." 10T 199-22 TO 200-5; (3) EVEN PROSECUTOR AFFIRMED OPPOSING MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE: "IF YOU SAW THE TELEVISION HE'S BEING BROUGHT IN THE COURTROOM IN THE BERGEN COUNTY JAIL UNIFORM WITH SHACKLES." 13t 107-14 TO 107-19[.]

Ground Five: THE TRIAL COURT'S CHARGE OF PASSION/PROVOCATION MANSLAUGHTER WAS ERRONEOUS[.]

Ground Six: THE TRIAL COURT DENIED DEFENDANT DUE PROCESS OF LAW AND A FAIR TRIAL BY RESTRICTING HIS COUNSEL'S SUMMATION.

Ground Seven: THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY RULING THAT THE "WEDDING VIDEOTAPE" WAS [ ] ADMISSIBLE.

Ground Eight: THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY FAILING TO SUPPRESS DEFENDANT'S ORAL STATEMENT [WHICH] SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED BECAUSE DEFENDANT'S FEDERAL FIFTH, EIGHTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT[] RIGHT[S] . . . WERE EGREGIOUSLY VIOLATED WHEN STATE'S WITNESS ROBERT ANZILOTTI AFTER FLAGRANTLY VIOLATING DEFENDANT['S] MIRANDA RIGHTS, ALSO VIOLATED FEDERAL JENCKS STATUTE, BY DESTROYING HIS HAND-WRITTEN NOTES TOGETHER WITH CONCEALMENT OF INTERROGATION VIDEO TAPE, ALLOWED THE STATE TO CONCEAL THE FACTS THAT ALLEGED CONFESSION WAS COMPLETELY FABRICATED AND THAT DEFENDANT WAS IN FACT SUBJECTED TO ILLEGAL PSYCHOLOGICAL TORTURE FOR MORE THAN 10 CONSECUTIVE HOURS. THEREAFTER, STATE WITNESS ROBERT ANZILOTTI REPEATEDLY COMMITTED PERJURY WHILE TESTIFYING AT MIRANDA HEARING CONCERNING DEFENDANT'S ALLEGED STATEMENT.

Ground Nine: THE DEFENDANT'S SENTENCE WAS EXCESSIVE.

Ground Ten: DEFENDANT'S CONSTITUTIONAL PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS OF LAW RIGHT, GUARANTEED TO HIM BY THE FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, WAS FLAGRALNTLY VIOLATED WHEN PCR COURT ARBITRARILY DENIED HIS DISCOVERY MOTIONS FOR PRODUCTION BY THE STATE OF CRITICAL DISCOVERY ESSENTIAL AND/OR INDISPENSABLE TO A FAIR, ROUNDED DEVELOPMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR DEFENDANT'S MERITORIOUS ISSUES.

Ground Eleven: THE LOWER COURT ORDER DENYING THE PETITION MUST BE REVERSE[D] SINCE DEFENDANT RECEIVED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF APPELLATE COUNSEL WHO PROVIDED ASSISTANCE WITH EGREGIOUS REPRESENTATION WHEN HE FAILED TO RAISE THE OBVIOUS MERITORIOUS ISSUES RAISED ON THIS PETITION.

Ground Twelve: THE LOWER COURT ORDER DENYING THE PETITION MUST BE REVERSE[D] SINCE THE PROSECUTOR TAMPERED WITH AND WITHHELD MATERIAL AND RELEVANT EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE.

Ground Thirteen: THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT GRANTING DEFENDANT'S REQUEST FOR AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING AND TYHE LOWER COURT MUST THEREFORE BE REVERSED.

Ground Fourteen: THE LOWER COURT ERRED WHEN IT ARBITRARILY DENIED WITHOUT RULING ON THE MERIT OF FOLLOWING TIMELY AND PROPERLY FILED DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS: (1) MOTION TO COMPEL PAYMENT FOR THE SERVICES OF AN AUDIBILITY EXPERT TO TEST THE WEDDING VIDEO TAPE . . . ; (2) MOTION TO COMPEL PAYMENT FOR THE SERVICES OF A DNA EXPERT TO TEST "THE SHEETS OF HIS BED FROM WHICH HE MAINTAINED WOUD CONTAIN THE DNA MATERIAL BELONG[ING] TO MS. RICART. DEFENDANT MAINTAINS THAT THE SHEETS, HAD THEY BEEN TESTED, WOULD HAVE PROVED THAT DEFENDANT AND MS. RICART HAD HAD SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP DURING THE MORNING HOURS BEFORE THE WEDDING, THEREBY SUPPORTING DEFENDANT'S VERSION OF EVENTS AND CONTRADICTING THE STATE'S THEORY OF THE CASE . . . ; (3) MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF TYHE ORIGINAL VIDEO TAPES . . .

...