Hoyos v. Davis

• Decision Date: 04 October 2017
• Docket Number: Case No.: 09cv0388 L (NLS)
• Parties: JAIME HOYOS, Petitioner, v. RON DAVIS, Warden of San Quentin State Prison, Respondent.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of California

JAIME HOYOS, Petitioner, v. RON DAVIS, Warden of San Quentin State Prison, Respondent.

Case No.: 09cv0388 L (NLS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

October 4, 2017

DEATH PENALTY CASE

ORDER:

(1) DENYING RESPONDENT'S REQUEST TO DISMISS CLAIMS 14-16 ON THE BASIS OF STATE PROCEDURAL BARS

(2) DENYING PETITIONER'S REQUEST FOR AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING ON CLAIMS 13-23 AND 25

(3) DENYING SECOND AMENDED PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

On August 28, 2014, Petitioner filed a brief regarding procedural issues, including requesting an evidentiary hearing, and addressing the merits of the claims in the Second Amended Petition ["SAP"], the operative petition in this habeas action under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (ECF No. 104.) Petitioner asserts that he "is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his Brady claims, his IAC [ineffective assistance of counsel] claims, and his Eighth Amendment mental retardation claim," listed as Claims 13-23 and 25 of the SAP. (Id. at 55.) On October 23, 2014, Respondent filed an Opposition/Response, and on March 6, 2015, Petitioner filed a Reply. (ECF Nos. 106, 114.) The Court held oral arguments on January 26, 2017. In response to the Court's subsequent request for information regarding matters discussed at oral arguments (see ECF No. 120), Petitioner filed a Response on May 12, 2017 and a Notice of Lodgment on June 30, 2017. (ECF Nos. 135, 140.) On July 6, 2017, Respondent filed a Response to Petitioner's filings. (ECF No. 141.)

For the following reasons, and based on the arguments presented in the pleadings and at oral argument, the Court DENIES Respondent's request to dismiss Claim 14-16 on the basis of state procedural bars, DENIES Petitioner's request for an evidentiary hearing on Claims 13-23 and 25, and DENIES habeas relief on all claims in the Second Amended Petition.

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

By an Information filed on August 25, 1992, Petitioner Jaime Hoyos and co-defendant Emilio Alvarado were charged with two counts of first degree murder and one count of attempted first degree murder in the deaths of Daniel and Mary Magoon and the wounding of their 3 year old son J., and three special circumstances. (Clerk's Transcript ["CT"] 26-31.) Both Petitioner and Alvarado¹ were also charged with conspiracy to commit robbery, first degree robbery, residential burglary, grand theft of a firearm, and transporting more than 28.5 grams of marijuana. (CT 31-34.) Petitioner and Alvarado were tried together.

After a guilt phase trial, Petitioner and Alvarado were convicted on two counts of first degree murder pursuant to California Penal Code § 187 in the deaths of Daniel andMary Magoon. (CT 3554-55, 3559-60.) They were acquitted of attempted murder but convicted of the lesser included offense of assault with a firearm pursuant to Cal. Penal Code §§ 664, 187, and 245 (a)(2) in the wounding of J. (CT 3556-57, 3561.) Petitioner and Alvarado were also convicted of conspiracy to commit robbery pursuant to Cal. Penal Code §§ 211 and 182.1, first degree robbery pursuant to Cal. Penal Code § 211, burglary pursuant to Cal. Penal Code § 459, grand theft of a firearm pursuant to Cal. Penal Code § 487.3, and transporting more than 28.5 grams of marijuana pursuant to California Health and Safety Code § 11360(a). (CT 3554-64.)

The jury found that Petitioner and Alvarado used a firearm in the commission of the murders pursuant to Cal. Penal Code § 12022.5. (CT 3555, 3559-60.) The jury also found true the three special circumstance allegations- that the murder was committed during the course of a robbery and burglary pursuant to Cal. Penal Code § 190.2(a)(17)(A) and (G), and multiple murder pursuant to Cal. Penal Code § 190.2(a)(3). (CT 3555-56, 3559-60.) Before the start of the penalty phase proceedings, the trial court denied Petitioner's motion for a new trial, but granted Alvarado's.² (CT 3574-75.)

After the penalty phase, the jury returned a verdict of life without the possibility of parole in the murder of Daniel Magoon and a verdict of death in the murder of Mary Magoon. (CT 3583-84.) On July 11, 1994, the trial court denied Petitioner's motions for a new trial and for modification of the verdict, and sentenced him to death. (CT 3588-91.)

On automatic appeal ["direct appeal"] of this conviction and judgment to the California Supreme Court, Petitioner filed an opening brief on October 17, 2003, raising sixteen (16) claims for relief, and a reply brief on March 16, 2006. (Lodgment Nos. 100, 102.) The California Supreme Court affirmed Petitioner's conviction and sentence in a decision issued on July 23, 2007. People v. Hoyos, 41 Cal. 4th 872 (2007). On February19, 2008, the Supreme Court of the United States denied his petition for a writ of certiorari. Hoyos v. California, 552 U.S. 1201 (2008.)

On September 11, 2006, Petitioner filed a habeas petition and supporting exhibits with the California Supreme Court, raising eighteen (18) claims for relief, and a reply brief on July 11, 2008. (Lodgment Nos. 106-15, 117.) The petition was denied on February 18, 2009, without an evidentiary hearing. (Lodgment No. 118.)

On February 26, 2009, Petitioner filed a motion to appoint counsel in this Court. (ECF No. 1.) On October 2, 2009, the Court appointed counsel. (ECF No. 12.) On January 15, 2010, Petitioner filed a motion for equitable tolling. (ECF No. 30.) After briefing and argument, the Court granted the motion for equitable tolling on February 16, 2010, extending the deadline to file the petition until September 1, 2010. (ECF No. 36.) On February 17, 2010, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, raising twenty-eight (28) claims for relief, and on September 1, 2010, Petitioner filed an amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus, raising the same 28 claims. (ECF Nos. 37, 54.) After hearing and adjudicating issues of exhaustion and stay and abeyance, the Court stayed the federal petition and held the case in abeyance for purposes of exhaustion. (ECF No. 72.)

On February 3, 2011 and February 9, 2011, Petitioner filed a habeas petition and supporting exhibits with the California Supreme Court, raising two claims for relief, and a reply brief on May 25, 2011. (Lodgment Nos. 120-21, 123.) On October 30, 2013, the California Supreme Court denied Petitioner's state exhaustion petition. (Lodgment No. 124.) On November 29, 2013, Petitioner filed his Second Amended Petition ["SAP"] in this Court, raising the same 28 claims presented in the prior federal petitions. (ECF Nos. 86-88.) On March 25, 2014, Respondent filed an Amended Answer ["Ans."] and an attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities ["Ans. Mem."]. (ECF No. 94.) On May 27, 2014, the Court issued an order setting forth deadlines for briefing procedural default, merits and any motions for evidentiary development. (ECF No. 99.) On August 28, 2014, Petitioner filed an Opening Brief ["Pet. Brief"] regarding the merits, procedural issues and an evidentiary hearing. (ECF No. 104.) On October 23, 2014, Respondent filed anOpposition/Response ["Resp. Opp."], and on March 6, 2015, Petitioner filed a Reply ["Reply"]. (ECF Nos. 106, 114.)

II. TRIAL PROCEEDINGS

The Court refers the parties to the statement of evidence issued by the California Supreme Court in Hoyos, 41 Cal. 4th at 879-89. The California Supreme Court's factual findings are presumptively reasonable and entitled to deference in these proceedings. See Sumner v. Mata, 449 U.S. 539, 545-47 (1981).

To provide context to the Court's discussion of the claims in the Second Amended Petition, particularly the claims asserting ineffective assistance of counsel, restated below is the California Supreme Court's summary of evidence and testimony presented during the guilt and penalty phase proceedings.

A. Guilt Phase

1. The Prosecution's Case

a. Evening of May 26, 1992

On May 26, 1992, Daniel Magoon, his wife Mary, and their children, D. (age seven) and J. (age three), were living on Steele Canyon Road in the Jamul area of San Diego County. Daniel Magoon operated a large-scale marijuana distribution business out of the garage of their house. He also kept weapons and money in the garage. A security gate around the house was usually closed.

Jimmy Johnson was a long-time friend and occasional partner of Daniel Magoon in the marijuana trade. In 1974, both Daniel Magoon and Johnson had pleaded guilty to intent to distribute a controlled substance. Johnson testified that he was not involved in dealing marijuana with Daniel Magoon at the time of Magoon's death.

Around 8:30 p.m., Daniel Magoon visited Johnson at Johnson's residence. Magoon told Johnson that he was expecting some people to come over to the Magoon house that evening, and then left Johnson's residence. That day, Johnson had seen Magoon with a stack of money, possibly as much as $250,000. Johnson never heard from Daniel Magoon again.

Around 7:45 p.m., the Magoons' next-door neighbor, Mary Jane Lange,entered her bedroom to read. Her bedroom windows were open. About 40 minutes later, Lange heard Daniel Magoon's voice and at least one other male voice. She heard Magoon say something like, "Oh, come on." Sometime between 10:30 p.m. and 11:30 p.m., Mrs. Lange heard what sounded like four firecrackers, in rapid succession, that came from the direction of the Magoon residence. Between five and 15 minutes later, Mrs. Lange heard a series of four to seven more firecracker noises in rapid succession, again coming from the direction of the Magoon house. Mrs. Lange's live-in son-in-law, Kenneth Wall, heard what sounded like four gunshots sometime between 11:00 p.m. and 11:30 p.m.

b. Auto Stop and Arrest of Defendants

About 12:20 a.m., on May 27, 1992, El Cajon Police Officer William Pettus was on patrol when he noticed the rear license plate light was out on a passing Toyota Corolla. Officer Pettus stopped the Corolla, exited his patrol vehicle, and approached the car. He saw Alvarado in the driver's seat and defendant in the front passenger seat. Alvarado was

...