Godoy v. Spearman, 13-56024

• Decision Date: 25 August 2016
• Docket Number: No. 13-56024,13-56024
• Citation: 834 F.3d 1078
• Parties: Enrique Anthony Godoy, Petitioner–Appellant, v. Marion Spearman, Respondent–Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

834 F.3d 1078

Enrique Anthony Godoy, Petitioner–Appellant,

v.Marion Spearman, Respondent–Appellee.

No. 13-56024

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted September 2, 2015—Pasadena, California

Filed August 25, 2016

Stephanie M. Adraktas (argued), Berkeley, California, for Petitioner–Appellant.

Stephanie A. Miyoshi (argued) and Colleen M. Tiedemann, Deputy Attorneys General; Lance E. Winters, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Gerald Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General; Kamela D. Harris, Attorney General of California; Office of the Attorney General, Los Angeles, California, for Respondent–Appellee.

Before: Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain, Raymond C. Fisher, and Jay S. Bybee, Circuit Judges.

Dissent by Judge Fisher

OPINION

O'SCANNLAIN

, Circuit Judge:

We must decide whether a state appellate court's affirmance of a conviction for second degree murder, along with its denial of a request for an evidentiary hearing and for a continuance, were contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal constitutional law.

I

A

Enrique Godoy and several friends were standing on the balcony of his apartment in Los Angeles when Chasen Pacheco, an acquaintance of Godoy, appeared below. Pacheco had been a friend until a recent dispute over marijuana, and asked Godoy “to come downstairs so he could talk to him.” There, Godoy and Pacheco started wrestling on the grass and throwing punches at each other.

Godoy's friends soon broke up the fight, and one friend, Brett Voegeli, grabbed Godoy and pulled him up the stairs. Pacheco continued to talk to Godoy, imploring him to go back down “to finish the fight.” Eventually, Godoy's friend Rodolfo Hernandez, standing nearby, heard Godoy say, “Let me finish him off.”

When Pacheco reached the top of the stairs, Voegeli tried to intervene, but Pacheco pulled him out of the way and said to Godoy, “Let's finish this.” Pacheco had nothing in his hands and did not try to hit Godoy, and instead, asked “What's up?” Godoy then stabbed Pacheco three times in the chest and stomach and punched him in the face. Godoy said, “That's what's up” and, “Get the fuck out of here.” Pacheco later died from the stab wounds

.

B

In due course, a Los Angeles County Superior Court jury convicted Godoy of second degree murder. An initial sentencing hearing took place on April 27, 2006, whereupon Godoy's counsel requested a forty-day continuance to prepare a motion for a new trial. The trial court granted the continuance, and set a new hearing date for June 12th. The court also instructed defense counsel to serve the prosecutor with his motion by May 30th.

One week after the due date, Godoy's counsel filed his motion for a new trial and served it to the prosecutor. In that motion, he asserted among other complaints that one of the active jurors in Godoy's trial, labeled Juror 10, committed misconduct by “conferr[ing] with a person referred to as a Judge up North.” In a subsequent response to the prosecutor's motion opposing a new trial, Godoy's counsel stated that he would “present live witness testimony or declarations from jury panel [sic] at the time of hearing.” On June 8th, the prosecutor requested discovery on any witnesses the defense planned on calling at the upcoming hearing. Godoy's counsel stated that he would fax the names of such witnesses that day, but failed to do so.

At the June 12th hearing, Godoy's counsel claimed that two alternate jurors told him that “there was a juror who was text messaging and speaking with a judge up north” during trial. He stated that one of these jurors, an alternate referred to in the record as E.M., was present and ready to testify. The prosecutor asked for a continuance, pointing out that Godoy's counsel had not disclosed the names and expected testimony of potential witnesses as promised and as California law requires. The court ruled that the prosecutor was entitled to discovery of witness statements the defense would offer, and therefore continued the hearing again to June 29th.

On June 22, Godoy's counsel sent the prosecutor a declaration from a second alternate juror, referred to as N.L. This declaration stated that during trial, Juror 10 exchanged text messages with her “judge friend.” The declaration stated that “[w]hen the jury was not sure what was going on or what procedurally would happen next, juror number ten would communicate with her friend and disclose to the jury what he said.” In response to these allegations, the prosecutor filed a second supplemental response to Godoy's motion for a new trial. She asserted that N.L.'s statements demonstrated that the communications between Juror 10 and her “judge friend” concerned only procedural matters rather than matters relevant to the jury's deliberation or the verdict.

On June 28th, one day before the scheduled hearing, Godoy's counsel filed a motion requesting an additional thirty-day continuance. He stated that he required this additional continuance because he was “engaged in trial” in another murder case, and because the prosecutor filed her second response to Godoy's motion—the response to defense counsel's surprise arguments at the previous hearing—while he was in trial. The state opposed the motion, arguing that Godoy's counsel had adequate time to prepare.

At the hearing the next day, the court denied defense counsel's motion to continue the hearing for a third time, finding that “there [was] no legal cause stated.” During this exchange, the court repeatedly asked Godoy's counsel whether he had more affidavits or evidence relevant to the juror misconduct issue that he would like to present. Counsel stated he was “not prepared” because he had been busy with the other trial. Having considered N.L.'s affidavit along with arguments previously offered by Godoy's counsel and the prosecution, the trial judge then denied Godoy's motion for a new trial.

C

Godoy appealed his conviction to the California Court of Appeal, arguing that the trial court erred in denying the motion for a new trial on the basis of juror misconduct. While his direct appeal was pending, Godoy also filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the same court. As part of his habeas petition, Godoy included an additional declaration from E.M.—the alternate juror Godoy's lawyer brought unannounced to the first hearing—as well as supporting declarations from Godoy's trial counsel and appellate counsel. E.M.'s declaration elaborated on Juror 10's alleged misconduct with her “judge friend” up north. According to E.M., Juror 10 texted her judge friend to ask what would happen after the trial judge informed the jury that he had to leave for a medical procedure. E.M. also asserted that Juror 10 received advice from her “judge friend” to write the trial judge a note in an attempt to be excused from jury duty.

On March 18, 2009, the California Court of Appeal took judicial notice of the record submitted with Godoy's direct appeal and denied Godoy's request to consolidate his habeas petition and his direct appeal. The Court of Appeal then denied his habeas petition on the merits, concluding that Godoy had “fail[ed] to state a prima facie case for relief.” That same day, on direct appeal, the Court of Appeal affirmed Godoy's conviction in an unpublished opinion. Godoy filed petitions for review of both decisions in the California Supreme Court, which were summarily denied on July 8, 2009.¹

D

On October 21, 2010, Godoy filed his federal habeas petition. After accepting findings and recommendation of the magistrate judge, the district court denied the petition on May 15, 2013. The district court also denied Godoy a certificate of appealability.

Godoy filed a timely notice of appeal, and we granted Godoy's request for a certificate of appealability for the issues raised in this appeal.

II

A

We review de novo a district court's denial of a § 2254 habeas corpus petition. Lopez v. Thompson , 202 F.3d 1110, 1116 (9th Cir. 2000)

(en banc). Because Godoy filed his petition after April 24, 1996, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”) governs review of his claims. Estrella v. Ollison , 668 F.3d 593, 597 (9th Cir. 2011). Under AEDPA, when a state court has adjudicated a claim on the merits, a district court may not grant a habeas petition unless the state court's 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.

28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)

.

A decision is “contrary to” Supreme Court precedent where “the state court arrives at a conclusion opposite to that reached by [the Supreme] Court on a question of law or if the state court decides a case differently than [the Supreme] Court has on a set of materially indistinguishable facts.” Williams v. Taylor , 529 U.S. 362, 413, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000)

. A state court unreasonably applies clearly established federal law if it “identifies the correct governing legal rule ... but unreasonably applies it to the facts of the particular state prisoner's case.” White v. Woodall , ––– U.S. ––––, 134 S.Ct. 1697, 1705, 188 L.Ed.2d 698 (2014) (quoting Williams , 529 U.S. at 407–08, 120 S.Ct. 1495 ). “[A]n unreasonable application of federal law is different from an incorrect application of federal law.” Williams , 529 U.S. at 410, 120 S.Ct. 1495. Likewise, a state court's refusal to extend Supreme Court precedent is not an unreasonable application of that precedent. See

White , 134 S.Ct. at 1706. Ultimately, “[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, 131 S.Ct. 770, 178 L.Ed.2d...