Martinez v. Martinez

• Decision Date: 17 March 2022
• Docket Number: CIV 19-0235 JB/KRS
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico
• Parties: STEVE GEORGE MARTINEZ, Petitioner, v. RICHARD MARTINEZ, Respondent.

STEVE GEORGE MARTINEZ, Petitioner, v. RICHARD MARTINEZ, Respondent.

No. CIV 19-0235 JB/KRS

United States District Court, D. New Mexico

March 17, 2022

Steve George Martinez Plaintiff Pro Se

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Petition Under 28 U.S.C § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody, filed March 18, 2019 (Doc 1)(“Petition”). The Court will dismiss the Petition, because Petitioner Steve George Martinez is not entitled to relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

S Martinez filed his Petition in this Court on March 18, 2019. See Petition at 1. In his Petition, Martinez challenges his conviction and sentence in State of New Mexico cause no. D-202-CR-2017-01282. See Petition at 1. The underlying facts, as described by S. Martinez' defense counsel on direct appeal, are as follows:

[O]n 18 March 2017, in the early morning, Mr Martinez-Appellant was driving on Lomas Boulevard in the City of Albuquerque, County of Bernalillo, State of New Mexico. He approached a sobriety checkpoint. Rather than stopping Mr Martinez drove through the checkpoint. According to officers' testimony and the trial court's order, Albuquerque Police Department (APD), Officer Jared Frazier was the first officer to make contact with Mr. Martinez as he proceeded through the checkpoint. Officer Frazier testified, during the evidentiary hearing and at trial, that while using his flashlight to indicate to Mr. Martinez to stop, that he, Officer Frazier, made eye contact with the Mr. Martinez, noticed that Mr. Martinez was the only person in the truck, noticed that Mr. Martinez did not stop at the checkpoint, and was almost struck by the side mirror of the truck. Officer Frazier testified that he called out the license plate number on the truck over the radio. As Mr. Martinez drove away Police Service Aides threw a stop stick under the truck's tires. The stop stick flattened the truck's tires. Officer Brown testified at the evidentiary hearing and at trial that he was also working the checkpoint and that he followed the truck driving on deflated tires. The truck continued driving on the rims of the truck after the tires had fallen away. Officer Brown testified that he then observed the Mr. Martinez exit [t]he truck and start walking away from him on the on ramp to the interstate highway. Officer Brown chased and arrested Mr. Martinez after Officer Luthi used his patrol car to block Mr. Martinez's path. Mr. Martinez was taken back to the road block by Officer Luthi in an effort by Officer Luthi to ensure Mr. Martinez was the person that fled the road block. While near the road block, with Mr. Martinez in the back seat of the patrol car, Officer Brown asked Officer Frazier if Mr. Martinez was the person that Officer Frazier saw fleeing the road block. During a search of the truck, following Mr. Martinez's arrest, several beer cans were discovered in the back seat of the truck. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Martinez was taken for a breath test. Mr. Martinez, after receiving the Implied Consent Act Advisory, refused to submit a breath test.

State of New Mexico v. Martinez, D-202-CR-2017-01282, Docketing Statement at 3-4, filed March 13, 2018.^[1] A jury convicted S. Martinez on one count of aggravated driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor (eighth or subsequent offense), two counts of resisting, evading, or obstructing an officer, and one count of reckless driving. See Petition at 1; State v. Martinez, 2018 WL 5994196 at *1 (N.M. Ct. App. 2018). Judgment was entered on the convictions on January 17, 2018. See Petition at 1.

S. Martinez appealed his convictions and sentence to the Court of Appeals of New Mexico. His direct appeal raised three issues: (i) double jeopardy; (ii) error by the trial judge in denying a motion to suppress Officer Frazier's show-up identification; and (iii) sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction for aggravated DWI. See State v. Martinez, 2018 WL 5994196 (N.M. Ct. App. 2018). The Court of Appeals of New Mexico affirmed in part and reversed in part S. Martinez' convictions and sentence on direct appeal in an unpublished opinion. See State v. Martinez, 2018 WL 5994196 at *3. The Court of Appeals of New Mexico held that one of S. Martinez' two convictions for resisting, evading, or obstructing an officer violated double jeopardy, and reversed and remanded for the district court to vacate that conviction. See State v. Martinez, 2018 WL 5994196 at *2. The Court of Appeals of New Mexico affirmed S. Martinez' convictions and sentence in all other respects. See State v. Martinez, 2018 WL 5994196 at *3. The Supreme Court of New Mexico denied certiorari on November 16, 2018.

On remand, the State district court vacated one of the convictions for resisting, evading, or obstructing an officer and re-sentenced S. Martinez. See State of New Mexico v. Martinez, D-202-CR-2017-01282, Amended Judgment and Sentence, filed July 11, 2019. S. Martinez did not appeal from the Amended Judgment and Sentence and did not file a state court habeas corpus petition. After the Court of Appeals of New Mexico had ruled, but before the trial court entered the Amended Judgment, S. Martinez filed his Petition in this Court on March 18, 2019. See Petition at 1. In his Petition, Martinez raises three grounds for relief:

There was insufficient evidence of aggravated DWI. On the night in question officer's Jason Brown/Christopher Luthi pursuing the truck at no time transmit via radio that the hit a car or missed some pedestrians nor had any footage via unit cam showing the truck was driven recklessly.

Show-up identification violated due process. Officer Frazier casted out the truck's license via radio when Officer Brown and Officer Luthi caught up to the pursuit, Officer Brown arrested Petitioner, there was no need to transport Petitioner back to the check point to be identified in handcuffs in the back of a squad car (it inherently suggestive).

Reckless driving violating double jeopardy. Petitioner's conviction for reckless driving is subsumed within the resisting/evading convictions-the conduct is unitary and punishment cannot be had for both.

See Petition at 5-8. S. Martinez requests that the Court “reverse/vacate on due process and double jeopardy grounds.” Petition at 15.

STANDARDS FOR § 2254 REVIEW

S. Martinez is proceeding in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. A prisoner in state custody may seek federal habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Section 2254 provides:

[A] district court shall entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.

28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). Habeas corpus relief is not limited to immediate release from illegal custody, but is available as well to attack future confinement and obtain future releases. See Peyton v. Rowe, 391 U.S. 54, 66-67 (1968). Habeas relief is available to obtain restoration of good time credits, resulting in shortening of the length of the petitioner's sentence. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 487-88 (1973).

As amended by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2254 sets limits on a federal court's power to grant an application for a writ of habeas corpus. If, as in this case, the application includes claims that have been adjudicated on the merits in state court proceedings, § 2254(d) expressly limits federal court review. Under § 2254(d), a habeas corpus application

shall not be granted with respect to [such a] claim . . . unless the 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)(1) and (2). Under this standard, a federal habeas court “reviews the specific reasons given by the state court and defers to those reasons if they are reasonable.” Wilson v. Sellers, 584 U.S. ____, 138 S.Ct. 1188, 1192 (2018). The standard is highly deferential to the State court rulings and demands that the State court be given the benefit of the doubt. See Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 101 (2011); Woodford v. Visciotti, 537 U.S. 19, 24 (2002)(per curiam). The standard is difficult for petitioners to meet in federal habeas proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170, 181 (2011).

Section 2254(d)(1)'s reference to “clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States” refers to the holdings of the Supreme Court's decisions as of the time of the relevant State-court decision. Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 412 (2000). Under § 2254(d)(1), a State court decision is “contrary to” the Supreme Court's clearly established law if it “applies a rule that contradicts the governing law set forth in [Supreme Court] cases” or if it “confronts a set of facts that are materially indistinguishable from a decision of [the] Court and nevertheless arrives at a result different from [that] precedent.” Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. at 405-06. A State court need not cite, or even be aware of, applicable Supreme Court decisions, “so long as neither the reasoning nor the result of the state-court decision contradicts them.” Early v. Packer, 537 U.S. 3, 8 (2002)(per curiam).

A State court decision is an “unreasonable application” of clearly established Supreme Court law if the decision “correctly identifies...