Garcia v. McDowell
Decision Date | 14 April 2023 |
Docket Number | 16-05301 BLF (PR) |
Parties | ESEQUIEL PAUL GARCIA, Petitioner, v. NEIL McDOWELL, Warden, Respondent. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of California |
ORDER DENYING SECOND AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS; DENYING CERTIFICATE OFAPPEALABILITY DIRECTIONS TO CLERK
Petitioner is proceeding pro se on a second amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his 2010 criminal judgment. Dkt No. 35 (“Amended Petition”). Upon consideration of the amended petition, Respondent's answer (Dkt No. 56), and Petitioner's traverse (Dkt No. 83), the amended petition will be DENIED.
This case arises from a love triangle involving Petitioner, Tessa Donnelly, and her ex-boyfriend, Mark Achilli. Angry that Donnelly and Achilli wanted to renew their relationship Petitioner recruited his employee, Daniel Chaidez (“Daniel”), to help him “get rid of a problem,” which Daniel understood to mean kill Achilli. Daniel then coordinated the hit job with his cousin, Miguel Chaidez (“Miguel”)[1], and a third man, Lucio Estrada. On March 14, 2008, Estrada shot Achilli multiple times, killing him. For this, Petitioner paid Daniel $9,500.
Petitioner was charged with one count of first degree murder (Cal. Penal Code § 187) with the special circumstance of soliciting the murder (Cal. Penal Code § 190.2(a)(15). Dkt No. 56-8 at 203-05. He was tried jointly with Miguel and Estrada[2], and the trial commenced on September 1, 2010. Dkt No. 56-9 at 30-31. On October 26, 2010, a jury convicted Petitioner of first degree murder and found true the special circumstance of solicitation of first degree murder. Dkt No. 56-9 at 235-36. The jury also found Miguel and Estrada guilty of first degree murder, further finding as to Estrada true special circumstances that he committed an intentional murder for financial gain (Cal. Penal Code § 190.2(a)(1)) and while lying in wait (Cal. Penal Code § 190.2(a)(15)) and that he personally and intentionally discharged a firearm proximately causing death (Cal. Penal Code § 12022.53(d)). Id.
On February 2, 2011, Petitioner's trial counsel, Harry Robertson, moved for a new trial. Dkt No. 57 at 120-27. On February 23, 2011, Robertson declared a conflict, and the court appointed new counsel, Edward Sousa, to represent Petitioner on his motion for a new trial. Id. at 131. Attorneys Sousa and Gregory Ward filed a motion for new trial on December 22, 2011. Dkt No. 57-1 at 4-107. On May 10, 2012, the trial court denied the new trial motion and sentenced Petitioner to life in prison without the possibility of parole. Dkt No. 59-23 at 8-60.
With the assistance of appointed appellate counsel Mark Greenberg, Petitioner simultaneously pursued an appeal and a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the California Court of Appeal (the ) . Dkt Nos. 58-3 at 1-99; 58-4 at 3-65; 58-6 at 52. The state appellate court affirmed the judgment and denied the habeas petition on March 2, 2015.[3] Dkt No. 58-4 at 76-159; People v. Garcia, No. H036346, 2015 WL 917801 (Cal.Ct.App. Mar. 2, 2015) (unpublished). Petitioner's subsequent petition for rehearing was also denied, though the state appellate court did issue an order modifying the opinion with no change in the judgment. Dkt No. 58-5 at 3-17, 22.
Petitioner proceeded to the California Supreme Court in pro per, filing petitions for review of the direct appeal and of the denial of the petition for writ of habeas corpus. Dkt No. 58 at 3-Dkt No. 58-2 at 226. After requesting and receiving an answer to the direct appeal and an informal response to the habeas matter, the California Supreme Court summarily denied both petitions on June 13, 2018. Dkt No. 58-6 at 98-102.
When the last state court to adjudicate a federal constitutional claim on the merits does not provide an explanation for the denial,” the federal court should ‘look through' the unexplained decision to the last related state-court decision that does provide a relevant rationale.” Wilson v. Sellers, __ U.S. __, 138 S.Ct. 1188, 1192 (2018). “It should then presume that the unexplained decision adopted the same reasoning.” Id. Here, the California Supreme Court did not provide an explanation for its denial of the petition for review. See Dkt No. 30-2 at 339. Accordingly, this Court will “look through” the California Supreme Court's decision to the state appellate court's decision. See Skidmore v. Lizarraga, No. 14-CV-04222-BLF, 2019 WL 1245150, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2019) (applying Wilson). Moreover, where an issue was raised for the first time at the California Supreme Court, this Court “must determine what arguments or theories supported or, as here, could have supported, the state court's decision; and then it must ask whether it is possible fairminded jurists could disagree that those arguments or theories are inconsistent with the holding in a prior decision of [the United States Supreme Court].” Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 102 (2011).
Petitioner filed the instant federal habeas petition on September 15, 2016 and is proceeding on a second amended petition filed on June 19, 2019. See Dkt Nos. 1, 35. Respondent filed an answer on June 19, 2020 (Dkt No. 56), and Petitioner filed a traverse on July 2, 2021 (Dkt No. 83).
The following background facts are taken from the opinion of the state appellate court on direct appeal:
To continue reading
Request your trial