Mendez v. Quarterman
| Decision Date | 04 June 2009 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. H-08-1146. |
| Citation | 625 F.Supp.2d 415 |
| Parties | Ruben MENDEZ, TDCJ # 1282532, Petitioner, v. Nathaniel QUARTERMAN, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice— Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas |
Ruben Mendez, Rosharon, TX, pro se.
Jessica M. Hartsell, Office of the Attorney General, Austin, TX, for Respondent.
State inmate Ruben Mendez (TDCJ # 1282532) has filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, seeking a federal writ of habeas corpus to challenge his state court felony conviction for aggravated sexual assault. The respondent has filed an answer, arguing that Mendez is not entitled to relief. (Doc. # 11). Mendez has filed a response, to which the respondent has filed a reply and Mendez has filed a sur-reply. (Docs. # 13, # 14, # 15). After considering all of the pleadings, the state court records, and the applicable law, the Court denies the petitioner's request for relief and dismisses this case for reasons that follow.
A state grand jury returned separate indictments against Mendez in 2004, charging him with aggravated sexual assault of a child in Harris County cause numbers 981328 and 981329. The State enhanced both indictments for purposes of punishment with allegations that Mendez had at least one prior felony conviction for sexual assault of a child. A jury in the 262nd District Court of Harris County found Mendez guilty of aggravated sexual assault of a child as charged in both indictments. After Mendez admitted that the enhancement allegations were true, the same jury sentenced him to serve life imprisonment in each case. Thereafter, the trial judge granted the State's motion to accumulate the sentences so that they would be served consecutively.
On direct appeal, Mendez argued that the victim's testimony was not credible and that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his conviction. The intermediate court of appeals rejected Mendez's arguments and affirmed the convictions based on the following:
To prove aggravated sexual assault of a child as to both charges, the State was required to prove that (1) on or about November 26, 2003, [Mendez] did then and there intentionally or knowingly cause the sexual organ of the victim to contact or penetrate the sexual organ and mouth1 of [Mendez]; and (2) the victim was a child younger than seventeen years of age and was not the spouse of appellant; and (3) the victim was then and there younger than fourteen years of age. See TEX. PEN.CODE. ANN. §§ 22.011(c)(1), 22.021(a)(1)(B)(iii).
In support of these allegations, [the] State called the victim to testify. The victim was nine years old at the time of trial. She testified that, while her mother was at work, [Mendez] would remove her shorts and panties down to her knees. [Mendez] would then remove his own pants, pull his underwear down to his knees and would then get on top of her. She testified that [Mendez]'s "stick" would touch her "cookie," but it would not penetrate her. She further testified that [Mendez] touched her "middle part" with his index finger and mouth and that [Mendez]'s tongue would penetrate her sexual organ. The victim also testified that [Mendez] "jacked off" in front of her and showed her the "white stuff" that would come out of his "stick." [Mendez] even explained to her that the white stuff was called "sperm." The victim testified that [Mendez] warned her that if she told, he would report that her mom uses drugs.
Mendez v. State, Nos. 13-05-108-CR & 13-05-109-CR, 2006 WL 1545864, **1-2 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi April 13, 2006) (footnote in original). Thereafter, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals refused Mendez's petition for discretionary review.
Mendez challenged his conviction further by filing identical state habeas corpus applications to challenge each conviction in cause numbers 981328 and 981329 under Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. In these applications, Mendez argued that his conviction should be set aside for the following reasons: (1) his trial attorney was deficient for failing to file a motion to recuse the trial judge or to subpoena witnesses regarding the victim's lack of credibility; (2) the trial judge abused his discretion by not recusing himself sua sponte; and (3) his appellate attorney was deficient for failing to raise these issues on appeal. The state habeas corpus court, which also presided over the trial, entered findings of fact and concluded that Mendez was not entitled to relief. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals agreed and denied relief based on the findings and conclusions of law made by the trial-level habeas court. See Ex parte Mendez, Nos. 69,357-01 & 69,357-02 (Tex. Crim.App. Jan. 9, 2008).
Mendez now seeks a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 to challenge his state court convictions in cause numbers 981328 and 981329. As he did on direct appeal, Mendez maintains that the evidence was legally insufficient to support the verdict. Mendez contends further that he is entitled to relief for the same reasons presented on state habeas review because he was denied the right to a fair trial before an impartial court and he was denied the right to effective assistance of counsel at trial and on appeal. The respondent argues that Mendez is not entitled to relief on any of his claims under the governing federal habeas corpus standard of review set forth below.
Federal review of habeas corpus petitions filed after April 24, 1996, is subject to provisions of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (the "AEDPA"), Pub.L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214 (1996). See Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 336, 117 S.Ct. 2059, 138 L.Ed.2d 481 (1997) (). "[The] AEDPA was enacted, at least in part, to ensure comity, finality, and deference to state court determinations by limiting the scope of collateral review and raising the standard for federal habeas relief." Robertson v. Cain, 324 F.3d 297, 306 (5th Cir.2003) (citations omitted). As the Supreme Court has explained, the federal habeas corpus statutes amended by the AEDPA, codified at 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), establish a "highly deferential standard for evaluating state-court rulings, ..., which demands that state court decisions be given the benefit of the doubt." Woodford v. Visciotti, 537 U.S. 19, 24, 123 S.Ct. 357, 154 L.Ed.2d 279 (2002) (internal citation omitted). Thus, the AEDPA has "modified a federal habeas court's role in reviewing state prisoner applications in order to prevent federal habeas `retrials' and to ensure that state-court convictions are given effect to the extent possible under law." Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685, 693, 122 S.Ct. 1843, 152 L.Ed.2d 914 (2002).
For claims adjudicated on the merits in state court, the AEDPA provides that a petitioner is not entitled to relief unless the state court's decision was "contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). A state court's decision is deemed contrary to clearly established federal law if it reaches a legal conclusion in direct conflict with a prior decision of the Supreme Court or if it reaches a different conclusion than the Supreme Court based on materially indistinguishable facts. See Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 404-08, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000); Avila v. Quarterman, 560 F.3d 299, 304 (5th Cir.2009). A state court unreasonably applies clearly established precedent if it identifies the correct governing legal principle but unreasonably applies that principle to the facts of the case. See Brown v. Payton, 544 U.S. 133, 141, 125 S.Ct. 1432, 161 L.Ed.2d 334 (2005). Under this standard, an "unreasonable" application must be more than merely incorrect or erroneous; rather, the state court's application of clearly established law must be "objectively unreasonable." Williams, 529 U.S. at 409, 120 S.Ct. 1495. The focus of this objective reasonableness inquiry is on the state court's ultimate decision, not whether the state court "discussed every angle of the evidence." Dale v. Quarterman, 553 F.3d 876, 879 (5th Cir.2008) (quoting Neal v. Puckett, 286 F.3d 230, 246 (5th Cir.2002) (en banc)).
A federal habeas corpus court's inquiry under § 2254(d)(1) is not altered where the state court denies relief without a written opinion. See Schaetzle v. Cockrell, 343 F.3d 440, 443 (5th Cir.2003). In that situation, a reviewing court assumes that the state court applied the proper "clearly established Federal law" and then determines whether its decision was "contrary to" or "an objectively unreasonable application of" that law. Id. (citing Catalan v. Cockrell, 315 F.3d 491, 493 & n. 3 (5th Cir.2002)).
Where pure questions of fact are concerned, the AEDPA provides that the state court's findings and conclusions are entitled to deference unless they are "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)(2); Buntion v. Quarterman, 524 F.3d 664, 670 (5th Cir.2008), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 129 S.Ct. 1306, 173 L.Ed.2d 593 (2009). A state court's findings of fact are presumed to be correct on federal habeas review and the petitioner has the burden of rebutting this presumption by clear and convincing evidence. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1). This presumption extends not only to express findings of fact, but to the implicit findings of the state court as well. Garcia v. Quarterman, 454 F.3d 441, 444 (5th Cir.2006) (citing Summers v. Dretke, 431 F.3d 861, 876 (5th Cir.2005); Young v. Dretke, 356 F.3d 616, 629 (5th Cir.2004)).
As this deferential standard...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Vazquez v. Davis
...Judge Hamilton had any direct involvement with the Montgomery County Women's Center during his trial. See also Mendez v. Quarterman, 625 F.Supp.2d 415, 425, 428 (Tex. S.D. 2009) (the petitioner failed to show that a motion to recuse would have been successful when he could not show any dire......
-
Williams v. Middlebrooks
... ... law[, ]” neither his pro se status nor ... ignorance of the law constitute cause for his procedural ... default. Mendez v. Quarterman, 625 F.Supp.2d 415, ... 431 (S.D. Tex. 2009) (citing Saahir v. Collins, 956 ... F.2d 115, 118-19 (5th Cir. 1992)) ... ...
-
Wall v. Dir., TDCJ-CID
... ... However, “[n]either pro se status nor ignorance of the ... law constitutes cause for a procedural default.” ... Mendez v. Quarterman, 625 F.Supp.2d 415, 431 (S.D ... Tex. 2009) (citing Saahir v. Collins, 956 F.2d 115, ... 118-19 (5th Cir.1992)). This ... ...
-
Fox v. Alberto
...to due process or due course of law, then the party is entitled to have a motion to recuse the judge granted. See Mendez v. Quarterman, 625 F.Supp.2d 415, 422–26 (S.D.Tex.2009). Even if this case supported Fox's assertion, we are bound by prior precedent of this court to apply the Liteky le......