MARTINEZ v. SCUTT
| Decision Date | 29 March 2011 |
| Docket Number | CASE NO. 2:08-CV-10229 |
| Parties | ALFONSO MARTINEZ, Petitioner, v. DEBRA SCUTT, Warden, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan |
HONORABLE VICTORIA A. ROBERTS
Alfonso Martinez, ("Petitioner"), is confined at the G. Robert Cotton Correctional Facility. He serves a mandatory life sentence. A Saginaw Circuit Court jury convicted him of first-degree premeditated murder.1 He now seeks a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. For the reasons stated below, his writ application is DENIED.
I. Background
This case arises out of the fatal beating of Petitioner's wife, Latisha Martinez. Latisha's body was found in the trunk of the Martinez's car on October 10, 2001. Petitioner was charged with her murder.
On the eve of trial, the trial court granted a one-day continuance at the request ofdefense counsel who wanted to interview two of the Martinez's children who had recently made statements. The next day, defense counsel informed the court that he had an opportunity to interview the two children. He noted that Petitioner's son, Alfonso Jr., had indicated that he had a memory of his father choking his mother on the date of her death. Defense counsel argued that this testimony was the unreliable product of Alfonso Jr.'s therapy, and he requested another continuance to meet with the therapist. Defense counsel also objected to testimony from a newly endorsed witness because he wanted time to check for telephone records regarding a phone call the witness claimed to have had with Petitioner. The trial court denied the motion for an additional continuance. The trial court allowed the defense to add Kelly Swartz - the social worker present during the interview of the children - to its witness list, and it indicated that it would allow the defense to call Linda Moten - Alfonso's Jr.'s therapist - as a witness.
Defense counsel also objected to the presentation of prior-bad-acts evidence regarding Petitioner's earlier conduct with the victim, based on insufficient notice. The prosecutor responded that he had made defense counsel aware of the statement by the victim's mother and that defense counsel had been provided a copy of the witness' statement. The trial court ruled that it would allow the other acts testimony. The trial court also agreed that the defense would be allowed to bring in statements or evidence about the marital problems, including allegations that the victim was having an extramarital affair.
The trial evidence revealed that in the summer and early fall of 2001, Petitioner and his wife lived on Bradley Street in the City of Saginaw. They were having marital problems, and Latisha and the their four children, Alexandra (age 14 at trial), Erica 12, Alfonso Jr. 7,and Cecelia 6, moved in with her parents, the Rocha's, in September of 2001.
During this time, Petitioner came over to his mother-in-law's house a few times. During one visit, Latisha went outside to talk with Petitioner after he kept pounding on the door. Latisha's mother, who was inside, heard her daughter screaming. She looked outside and saw Petitioner beating and kicking Latisha. Latisha's mother and the oldest daughter ran outside and asked him to stop. Petitioner pushed Alexandra away when she tried to stop him, and he left before the police arrived. Latisha was not seeing any other men while she lived with her mother, although Petitioner accused her of having an affair.
Four or five days before the victim was killed, her cousin Isaac Garza, who was friendly with Petitioner, received a telephone call from him. Petitioner asked Garza questions about Latisha and whether she was having an affair. Petitioner told Garza that he was going "to smoke" his wife, "f- that bitch up," and "get her ass."
Latisha and the children moved in with a friend, Terry Valasquez. Petitioner discovered this a day or two before Latisha was killed. A few days before her death, Ms. Valasquez saw Petitioner pull up to her house in his van. She asked him to leave. Instead, he got Latisha and forced her into his van. When Ms. Valasquez returned home, Latisha and the kids were gone. She spoke with Latisha the next day on the phone.
On October 8, 2001, Latisha's mother received a call from Petitioner asking her to bring some soup over to the house. She was reluctant, but Petitioner said he would let the oldest daughter spend the night with her. Mrs. Rocha agreed to bring the food, and she arrived with her husband at the Bradley Street home about 9 p.m. Petitioner wore black shoes, a t-shirt and a pair of cream or tan colored jeans. The kids were awake when shearrived. As Petitioner and some of the kids ate the soup, Mrs. Rocha had a chance to speak briefly with Latisha, who indicated she did not want to be there. Latisha planned to start a new job at a grocery store the next day. Mrs. Rocha and her husband left with the oldest child, Alexandria, at about 10:30 p.m. Alexandria thought that her father was wearing a black shirt with light blue jeans at that time. Erica testified that when she went to bed that night, Petitioner told her not to come out of her room. When she woke up in the morning, her parents were gone and her grandmother was there.
At 1:30 or 2 a.m. on October 9th, Petitioner called his own mother and asked her to come and take the kids to school in the morning. He told his mother he was going to put job applications in and that his wife would be starting a new job. A neighbor, who lived across the street from the Martinez residence, noted that at about 2:30 a.m. on the 9th, he heard Defendant's GMC van - and its notably loud exhaust - start up and leave. The neighbor looked out the window and saw that the mercury light in the Martinez's driveway had been turned off. He never heard the van return.
When Petitioner's mother arrived later that morning, the door was open and the children were home alone and still in bed. She took the older children to school and stayed at the house to watch Cecelia. The victim's mother arrived at the house later that morning. Petitioner's mother was pacing back and forth. She was nervous and told Mrs. Rocha that she thought Petitioner must have done something to Latisha.
That same day, one of Petitioner's neighbors went to move his trash cans closer to his house. He noticed a pair of black boots in the trash can and then found a pair of bloody light colored pants and a black shirt in the can. He gave the items to a police officer.Various relatives of Petitioner identified the boots and clothing, as belonging to Petitioner and worn by him on October 8th.
Juan Gonzalez, the victim's brother, could not be located to testify at trial. But, during the preliminary examination, he testified that on October 9th, he received a call from Petitioner. Petitioner told Juan that he messed up, f— up, and wanted to kill himself. The preliminary examination testimony was admitted at trial. Latisha's cousin, Abraham Rosales, testified that he received a telephone call from Petitioner. Petitioner told Rosales that he had an argument with Latisha in the kitchen and had choked her. Petitioner told him that he did not know whether Latisha was dead, and he asked Rosales to tell the family he was sorry. Petitioner told Rosales that he was "two states from Pennsylvania" and that he was going to kill himself.
On October 10th, a police officer spotted the Martinez's white Oldsmobile backed into a space in a parking lot that was within walking distance of the Bradley Street residence. The officer reported his finding and stayed with the car until other officers arrived. Latisha was discovered in the trunk, covered by the comforter her mother had seen on the victim's couch on October 8th.
State police crime laboratory investigators arrived at the residence on October 10th. Spots of blood were found in the sidewalk and driveway and samples were taken. Blood stains on the living room carpet, as well as a mark of blood in the kitchen, were also detected. A stain in the kitchen appeared as if it had been cleaned up. The expert who took samples at the scene opined that something had occurred in the living room. Blood stains were also discovered on the hood, trunk, and bumper of the car.
Dr. Virani, the forensic pathologist who conducted the autopsy on the victim, opined that Latisha's death was caused by blunt force head and neck trauma. He explained that this conclusion was based upon his findings of internal bleeding in various areas of the brain, as well as outside and inside injuries to the neck and chest areas. There was evidence of multiple blows, as well as evidence of choking and pressure in the area of the victim's neck. The blunt force injuries were consistent with being struck by a fist, hands, foot, or some type of object. Dr. Virani estimated the time of death to be in the morning hours of October 9th. Photographs of scrapes on the victim's arm and elbow revealed that the victim's body was dragged near or after death. Doctor Virani explained that the photographs helped him to describe the nature and extent of the injuries as well as the cause of death. Over defense counsel's objections, the trial court admitted the photographs into evidence.
DNA analysis on some of the items revealed: (1) a match to the victim for the blood stain found on the sidewalk at the Martinez residence; (2) a match to Petitioner on a sample from a tag on the tan jeans found in the garbage; (3) a match to the victim for the two bloodstains found on the tan jeans; and (4) a match to the victim for bloodstains that were found on the shirt that the victim was wearing.
Petitioner reappeared on October 14th, when he walked into his mother's house. He asked her where his wife and kids were. When his mother told him that Latisha had been murdered, Petitioner fell to his knees and...
To continue reading
Request your trial