Medeiros v. Rackley

• Decision Date: 13 February 2018
• Docket Number: Case No. 1:16-cv-01644-SAB-HC
• Parties: GAYLE MARIE MEDEIROS, Petitioner, v. RON RACKLEY, Respondent.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California

GAYLE MARIE MEDEIROS, Petitioner, v. RON RACKLEY, Respondent.

Case No. 1:16-cv-01644-SAB-HC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

February 13, 2018

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE CASE, AND DECLINING TO ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

Petitioner is proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner and Respondent have consented to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). (ECF Nos. 7, 8).

I.BACKGROUND

On January 3, 2013, Petitioner was convicted after a jury trial in the Tuolumne County Superior Court of first-degree residential burglary and bringing a controlled substance into a jail. (CT¹ 30, 32). Petitioner was sentenced to an imprisonment term of eleven years. (CT 42). On July 29, 2014, the California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District affirmed the judgment. People v. Medeiros, No. F066731, 2014 WL 3729342, at *1 (Cal. Ct. App. July 29, 2014).

Thereafter, Petitioner filed a state petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Tuolumne County Superior Court, which denied the petition on February 10, 2015. (LDs² 3, 4). Petitioner's subsequent "Petition to Amend Habeas Corpus" was denied by the Tuolumne County Superior Court on April 22, 2015. (LDs 5, 6). Petitioner's third state habeas petition filed in the Tuolumne County Superior Court was denied on March 11, 2016. (LDs 7, 8). Petitioner filed a state habeas petition in the California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, which denied the petition on June 9, 2016. (LDs 9, 10). Petitioner then filed a state habeas petition in the California Supreme Court, which denied the petition on September 14, 2016. (LDs 11, 12).

On October 31, 2016, Petitioner filed the instant federal petition for writ of habeas corpus in this Court. (ECF No. 1). In the petition, Petitioner raises the following claims for relief: (1) abuse of process, undisclosed charges, fabrication of charges without arraignment; (2) ineffective assistance of counsel; (3) police misconduct; (4) prosecutorial misconduct; and (5) excessive fine and disproportionate sentence. Respondent has filed an answer, and Petitioner has filed a traverse. (ECF Nos. 32, 38, 39).

II.STATEMENT OF FACTS³

I. Prosecution Case

Melody Jo Timmons testified that at approximately 5:00 p.m. on October 20, 2012 (October 20), she was outside the Tuolumne Market in Tuolumne waiting for her niece, Andrea, to arrive and give her a ride, when she saw appellant, who she had known for approximately 10 to 12 years, "maybe longer," walking through the store parking lot.⁴ Appellant "caught [Timmons] and pulled [her] aside," and the two spoke for "several minutes," during which time appellant showed Timmons some photographs on her (appellant's) cell phone of Andrea and two of Timmons's sons.

At some point, Timmons began walking the approximately one to one-and-one-half-mile distance to her house, and while she was walking, "tribal security" picked her up and drove her to her brother's residence. Thereafter, Andrea arrived and drove Timmons home. Upon her arrival, she saw that the front door was "slightly wedged open" and the "trimming on the inside" of the door was "broke[n] and chipped." She went inside and discovered that some of her propertywas missing, viz., a mirror, a piece of furniture with "three compartment-like little shelves,"⁵ and boxes containing clothes.

At about the time Timmons noticed her door was open, Andrea was in the process of backing her vehicle out of the driveway, at which point appellant arrived in a truck, along with another person, and blocked Andrea from leaving. Soon thereafter, appellant "came running up to [Timmons's] house" and onto the porch. Timmons told her "get off [the] porch," and appellant yelled something like " 'I know you got my phone,' " and demanded that Timmons return it. Appellant also "swore up and down that she was going to go in [the] house and get her phone." She asked Timmons, " 'Where is your purse?' " and "acted like she was going to ... use ... physical force." Timmons ordered appellant to leave. At some point thereafter, Timmons called the Tuolumne County Sheriff's Department and "turned [appellant] in for ... accusing [Timmons] of stealing [appellant's] phone."

Tuolumne County Deputy Sheriff Jeff Gempler testified to the following: After being dispatched at 9:38 p.m., on October 20, he made contact with appellant, who, along with Mike Flynn, was sitting in a pickup truck parked approximately 30 yards from Timmons's house. Appellant was sitting in the passenger seat. She told the deputy that she had been "hanging out" with Timmons earlier that day at Tuolumne Market. At one point, appellant left her cell phone near Timmons and went to use the bathroom. When she returned, Timmons and the phone were gone. Shortly after speaking with appellant, Gempler spoke with Timmons. Timmons told the deputy that she came home from the store to find her front door, which had been closed when she left the house, "wide open." She soon thereafter discovered that missing from her house were the tote, "a box ... or boxes of clothing," and a "white tote."⁶

While he was speaking with appellant, Gempler looked into the bed of the truck and saw a saddle, one or two boxes of clothing, and the tote. After speaking with Timmons, and thinking that he had just seen a tote like the one she described in the bed of the truck, he brought Timmons over to the truck and showed her the tote. Upon seeing it, Timmons stated, " 'That's mine.' " Timmons also said the boxes of clothing in the truck did not belong to her.

There was a bottle of ketchup inside the tote that was not visible before Gempler removed the tote from the truck. Before Gempler pulled the tote out of the truck bed, Timmons "indicate[d], 'There is a bottle of ketchup in there[.]' "

With Timmons's permission, Gempler searched her house for appellant's cell phone. He did not find it.

Timmons testified she did not put the tote in the truck and she did not give appellant or anyone else permission to take property from her house. When asked if any of her friends or relatives put the tote in the truck, Timmons responded, "Not that I—I don't know. No. But it could possibly be."

II. Defense Case

Appellant, the sole defense witness, testified to the following: On October 20, she was living in Tuolumne but was in the process of moving to Amador County. She had packed her belongings and had arranged for Mike Flynn to come to Tuolumne to pick her up.

Prior to Flynn's arrival, appellant went to Tuolumne Market, and as she was coming out of the store she encountered Timmons, her former sister-in-law, who she had known for approximately 30 years. Appellant had pictures of Timmons's children on her cell phone, and as the two sat on the ground in a breezeway by the store, appellant showed the pictures to Timmons. Eventually, Timmons said she had to leave, and appellant, who had laid her phone on the ground, said goodbye and went to use a public bathroom, at which point she realized she did not have her phone. Appellant thought to herself, " '[Timmons] has my phone,' " and went back to where she and Timmons had been sitting. Timmons, however, was gone and appellant could not find her phone. At that point it was approximately 7:55 p.m.

Appellant walked to the Tuolumne Apartments, located "right next to the store," where an acquaintance lived, and waited in that person's apartment for Flynn to arrive. Danielle Hawn, who was in the process of moving into that apartment, was also there. Flynn arrived at approximately 8:35 p.m., and after they "sat and ... socialized," Flynn and appellant "took [Hawn] up Tuolumne Road to pick up [her] belongings," which she had "stashed on the side of the road." After that was accomplished, Flynn and appellant "dropped [Hawn] off," and Flynn then drove appellant to her home, where she "got [her] ... clothes and stuff." Appellant "kind of lifted up" her belongings to Flynn, who put the items in the truck bed. Appellant never climbed up into the truck bed. When they were finished, at approximately 10:00 p.m., Flynn, at appellant's request, drove appellant to Timmons's house so appellant could retrieve her phone.

When they arrived, appellant approached Andrea, who was in her car outside the house, and asked her to help get appellant's phone back from Timmons. Andrea rolled up her window and tried to back up, but the pickup was in her way.

Timmons came out on the porch, and appellant walked toward her. Appellant "might have" gone up on the porch. Appellant said she needed her phone, but Timmons denied having it. Timmons was "combative," and appellant "got scared." Andrea had called tribal security and appellant went back to the truck to wait for them because she thought they would help her recover her phone.

At that point, Flynn began to back up the truck to let Andrea leave, and Timmons "came down" and began banging on the truck, telling appellant and Flynn to leave. She then climbed into the bed of the truck, where she was "screaming" and "banging stuff around." Flynn "turned [the truck] around" and began driving away from the house, in an effort to "get [Timmons] out of the back of truck," at which point Timmons "got out of the truck." Flynn then parked the truck and shortly thereafter tribal security arrived, followed a short time later by Deputy Gempler. At that point, Timmons was "screaming" that the tote was in the truck.

Appellant was not in Timmons's house on October 20, and had not been "in that house in months." She did not steal the tote.

Medeiros, 2014 WL 3729342, at *1-3 (footnotes in original).

///

///

///

III.STANDARD OF REVIEW

Relief by way of a petition for writ of habeas corpus extends to a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a state court if the custody is in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3); ...