Maldonado v. Martinez

JurisdictionUnited States,Federal,New Mexico
PartiesSTEVEN I. MALDONADO, Petitioner, v. FNU MARTINEZ, Warden, and RAUL TORREZ, Attorney General of the State of New Mexico, Respondents.
Decision Date18 January 2024
CourtU.S. District Court — District of New Mexico
Docket NumberCiv. 20-507 MV/GJF
PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION
THE HONORABLE GREGORY J. FOURATT, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

THIS MATTER comes before the Court[1] on Petitioner's pro se “PETITION Under 28 U.S.C. 2254 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus” (“Petition”) [ECF 27] Respondent's Answer [ECF 37], and Petitioner's Reply [ECF 39].[2] Having carefully reviewed the briefing the voluminous record, and being fully advised, this Court recommends the Petition be DENIED for the reasons that follow.

I. BACKGROUND

On November 22, 2013, Petitioner was charged with two counts of first-degree criminal sexual penetration of a minor, four counts of second-degree criminal sexual contact of a minor, and three counts of third-degree criminal sexual contact of a minor. ECF 37-1, Ex A. On March 21, 2017, Petitioner entered into a Repeat Offender Plea and Disposition Agreement, under which he pled no contest to the two counts of first-degree criminal sexual penetration of a child under 13 years of age (Counts 1 and 2) and one count of third-degree criminal sexual contact of a minor (Count 7). In exchange, the State agreed to dismiss the remaining six counts. ECF 37-1, Ex. G at 10-11.

At the recorded plea hearing one day earlier, Judge J.C. Robinson confirmed that Petitioner had read and signed the agreement; discussed it with his counsel, Stacey Ward; and understood it. ECF 38, Ex. A, Mar. 20, 2017 Plea Hr'g Tr., at 3:31:30-3:32:44. Petitioner told Judge Robinson that he understood that as a result of his plea, he could be fined and sentenced to up to 42 years in prison.[3] Id. at 3:32:53-3:33:14. He also said that he understood that he was waiving his rights to (1) a jury trial; (2) assistance of counsel at trial; (3 confront and crossexamine the witnesses against him; (4) present evidence and have the State compel witnesses to appear and testify; and (5) remain silent with a presumption of innocence until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. He told the judge that he wanted to give up those rights and proceed with his plea. Id. at 3:33:23-3:34:09.

Petitioner also admitted that there was sufficient evidence with respect to Counts 1, 2, and 7 that, if believed by a jury, could result in convictions. Id. at 3:34:14-3:34:27. He stated that no promises were made outside of the plea agreement to secure his plea, he was not threatened, and his pleading was free and voluntary. Id. at 3:34:30-3:34:42. Petitioner then pled no contest to Counts 1, 2, and 7. Judge Robinson accepted the plea as knowing, voluntary, and intelligent before referring the matter to Judge Jennifer DeLaney for disposition. Id. at 3:34:49-3:35:12.

On June 2, 2017, Stacey Ward moved to withdraw as Petitioner's counsel due to a conflict of interest. ECF 37-1, Ex. H. The conflict arose when Petitioner expressed a desire to withdraw his plea and argue that he was pressured to take the deal, whereas Ms. Ward was present throughout the proceedings and believed no one pressured her client into his plea deal but instead only advised him on the pros and cons of the deal. Id. The state court granted counsel's motion to withdraw, and Petitioner's new counsel then moved to withdraw Petitioner's plea, asserting that (1) Ms. Ward had pressured Petitioner into entering it; (2) Petitioner was not “properly advised” of the consequences of pleading; and (3) Petitioner did not understand his rights. ECF 37, Ex I, Ex. J at 25-26.

At the hearing on the motion to withdraw the plea, Petitioner testified that he told Ms. Ward “over and over and over” that he wanted to proceed to trial and claimed that she did not “fully explain the terms of taking the plea and what it meant.” ECF 38, Ex. A, Nov. 30, 2017 Mot. Hr'g Tr. at 12:41:56-12:42:18. He said that he felt pressure from Judge Robinson because the judge “recommend[ed] that [Petitioner] take [his] lawyer's advice.” Id. at 12:43:0912:43:21. According to Petitioner, when asked whether his plea was voluntary, he “didn't really answer [and instead] said, “No, I don't agree,” “but under [his] breath[.] Id. at 12:43:30-12:43:40; 1:02:42-1:02:55. He further maintained that it was the prosecutor who told Judge Robinson that the plea was voluntary. Id. at 12:43:43-12:43:49. Petitioner nonetheless conceded that he took no steps to attempt to correct the record during the plea hearing. Id. at 1:02:56-1:03:05.

On cross-examination, Petitioner admitted that he understood, among other things, that under the plea agreement he faced a maximum term of 20 years imprisonment, whereas if he had gone to trial and been convicted of all nine counts charged, see ECF 37, Ex. A at 1-2, he could have served up to 80 years. ECF 38, Ex. A, Nov. 30, 2017 Mot. Hr'g Tr. at 12:44:30-12:46:22. He said that he responded in the affirmative when Judge Robinson asked if he understood and was ready to give up each of the rights he was waiving because Ms. Ward “advised [him] to.” Id. at 12:48:44-12:50:10. He denied having been promised any rewards, payments, or favors in exchange for his plea. Id. at 1:00:30-1:00:43.

When asked for specifics as to how he had been pressured, Petitioner said that Ms. Ward did not threaten him, but used such “scare tactics” as explaining that (1) if convicted at trial, his exposure would have been much greater than it was under the plea agreement; (2) a jury would not believe, as he was claiming, that his statement to police was coerced; and (3) three victims could be testifying at trial “when paperwork show[ed] only one victim.”[4] ECF 38, Ex. A, Nov. 30, 2017, Mot. Hr'g Tr., at 12:51:15-12:53:42. He also insisted that the families of the victims, including his cousin and an uncle of one of the victims, Manuel Maldonado, had threatened him with physical harm if he did not go to prison. Id. at 12:58:57-1:00:30, 1:00:48-1:01:24; Ex U at 102; Ex V at 114; Ex A2 at 262, 264.

After the hearing and review of the record, Judge DeLaney denied the motion. She found that (1) both Ms. Ward and Judge Robinson had explained to Petitioner the consequences of changing his plea; (2) Judge Robinson confirmed that Petitioner understood the rights he was waiving by pleading; (3) notwithstanding Petitioner's later claim that he pled because Manuel Maldonado had threatened him, Petitioner initially told Judge Robinson that nobody had threatened or used force against him, and that he was pleading voluntarily; (4) Ms. Ward's advice to enter a plea, based partly on the possible consequences of proceeding to trial and losing, did not amount to a “scare tactic[;] and (5) the plea was “validly obtained.” See generally ECF 37-1, Ex. L.

On August 8, 2018, Petitioner was sentenced to a 42-year term of imprisonment, with all but 20 years suspended, see ECF 37-1, Ex. R at 77. Shortly before sentencing, Petitioner filed the first of five pro se state habeas petitions, asserting, as is relevant here, that Ms. Ward used “psychology/mind games/my religion” to coerce a plea. ECF 37-1, Ex. N; Ex. O at 38. After the district judge dismissed the petition, see ECF 37-1, Ex. Q, the New Mexico Supreme Court denied Petitioner's petition for a writ of certiorari. ECF 37-1, Ex. S and T.

Petitioner filed his second state habeas petition on May 30, 2019, alleging “misconduct/ineffective assistance of counsel[,] and also that Manuel Maldonado had tampered with “typed transcripts[.] ECF 37-1, Ex. U at 102. Judge DeLaney denied this petition on July 30, 2019, and the New Mexico Supreme Court again denied Petitioner's petition for a writ of certiorari by Order of October 16, 2019. ECF 37-2, Ex. V-X.

After the district judge dismissed petitioner's third petition challenging the results of one of the victim's sexual abuse examinations, Petitioner made multiple requests for transcripts, recorded interviews, laboratory reports, and police reports. ECF 37-2, Ex. E1, I1, J1, L1-R1. Petitioner sought mandamus relief from the state district court on September 30, 2020, asking to be provided with his “full discovery/record proper.” ECF 37-2, Ex. S1 at 221; see also ECF 37-2, Ex. X1. He also moved for Judge DeLaney's recusal. ECF 37-2, Ex. B1.

In response to the records requests, the district court clerk mailed Petitioner the record proper, and Sixth Judicial District Court Monitor, Felicia R. Ortiz, sent him audio CDs from 14 different hearings. ECF 37-2, Ex. K1 and V1. In response to a previous records request, Ms. Ortiz explained to Petitioner that she had provided him with a complete audio recording of the plea hearing and that the court does not record the settlement negotiations that took place as part of the settlement facilitation proceeding before the plea hearing. ECF 37-2 at 90.

On November 13, 2020, Petitioner filed his fourth state habeas petition, citing to an error in the sentencing transcript that indicated Petitioner was sentenced to two years. ECF 37-2, Ex. W1 at 233. After review of the hearing recording that clearly stated Petitioner was going “to department of corrections for a twenty-year period,” Judge DeLaney dismissed the petition on March 10, 2021, and the state supreme court denied Petitioner's petition for a writ of certiorari on April 27, 2021. ECF 37-2, Ex. Z1; A2; C2.

More than three years after the entry of his judgment and sentence, Petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal, see ECF 37, Ex. D2, as well as an informal docketing statement in which he contended, in pertinent part, that when he requested a copy of the recording from his March 20, 2017 plea hearing, “the Sixth Judicial Court Monitor removed it from the record[.] ECF 37, Ex. E2 at 349. ...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT