Molina v. Ryan
| Decision Date | 07 February 2017 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 14-cv-11104 |
| Parties | ALEXANDER MOLINA, Petitioner, v. KELLY RYAN, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts |
BURROUGHS, D.J.
Petitioner Alexander Molina ("Molina") was convicted of murder in the second degree, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 265, § 1, unlawful possession of a firearm while not at work or at home, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 269, § 10(a), and discharge of a firearm within five hundred feet of a building, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 269, § 12E, for which he is currently serving a life sentence. Presently pending before this Court is Molina's petition for habeas corpus relief brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. [ECF No. 1]. Having reviewed the parties' submissions, and construing Molina's petition liberally because he is proceeding pro se, this Court DENIES Molina's petition for a writ of habeas corpus for the reasons explained below.
The following factual background is based on the summary of the facts as stated by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ("SJC") in Commonwealth v. Molina, 3 N.E.3d 583, 586-89 (Mass. 2014), which relied on the facts as laid out by the Massachusetts Appeals Court ("APC") in Commonwealth v. Molina, 969 N.E.2d 738 (Mass. App. Ct. 2012). 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1). Here, Molina does not argue that the facts the SJC's decision relied on were erroneous.
Around 5:00 p.m. on March 30, 2005, James Gauoette was shot to death near the intersection of Ruth and Salisbury Streets in New Bedford, Massachusetts. Three witnesses testified about their observations of the events surrounding the shooting. The APC referred to these witnesses by the pseudonyms of Alice, Barbara, and Claire. Alice testified that she heard gunfire and then saw a man in a mustard-colored T-shirt and light-colored jeans standing over the victim. The man was hitting the victim with an object. While Alice described the man as having a medium build with a tanned complexion, she could not see his face. The man ran down Salisbury Street.
Barbara testified that she was talking with Molina around 5:00 p.m. on the day of the shooting and that he was wearing jeans and a yellow shirt. When the victim approached Molina and said he was "just [t]here to talk," Molina went to his vehicle, which was parked nearby, retrieved a gun, and shot the victim. About ten to fifteen minutes later, after emergency personnel arrived, Barbara saw Molina again, but he had changed into a brown jogging outfit.
Claire testified that she heard a gunshot, looked out her window, and saw a man shoot a "kid" lying on the sidewalk four times. The shooting occurred at the corner of Ruth and Salisbury Streets. After the shooting, the man ran back across the street and handed the gun to another man, who threw it in a green car parked on Salisbury Street. Claire was familiar with Molina and testified that he had previously driven the green car. Claire also testified that about twenty or thirty minutes after the shooting, Molina came up Salisbury Street, went into a beigehouse, and emerged wearing a brown sweatshirt. At Molina's trial, Claire identified him as the shooter.
At approximately 10:00 p.m. that evening, as the police prepared to tow a bluish-green vehicle located in the crime scene area, Molina and an acquaintance crossed the crime scene tape, approached an officer, and Molina advised that the vehicle was his. In response to the officer's inquiry, Molina indicated that his name was Orlando Figueroa. After the officer informed Molina that the vehicle was not his as it was registered to "Alex Molina," Molina gave his true name. Shortly thereafter, another officer asked Molina if he would go to the police station to answer some questions, and Molina agreed to do so. Officer David Brown transported Molina to the police station in a police vehicle. Molina was not handcuffed or under arrest.
At approximately 11:45 p.m., State Trooper Carmelo Serrano, Jr., and Detective Christopher J. Dumont began a videotaped interview of Molina in a windowless twelve foot by eight foot room at the police station. The interview was led primarily by Trooper Serrano who conducted the interview mostly in Spanish, the first language of both Serrano and Molina. Serrano began the interview by providing Molina with written Miranda warnings in Spanish. After Molina read the warnings out loud, the following exchange took place:
After Serrano, Dumont, and Molina signed the Miranda waiver form, the interview began. Serrano first asked general questions, including where Molina lived and why his vehicle had been at the intersection of Ruth and Salisbury Streets. There was some joking and then the officers focused their questioning on what Molina had been doing earlier that day. Serrano had not yet told Molina about the shooting. Molina indicated that he had worn white "sweats" with red stripes to work earlier that day and had changed into the brown jogging suit he was wearing during the interview after showering at a friend's house. In response, Serrano asked "where is the . . . yellow sweatshirt that you had on this afternoon?"1 Molina stated that he had worn the yellow shirt while he was working on his car in order to prevent his regular clothes from getting dirty and that it must still be in his vehicle. Molina also said that the yellow shirt had been lent tohim by a man named Angelo, but that he did not know Angelo's last name. When Molina was asked for additional information regarding Angelo, he made his second reference to counsel, saying:
It was at this point in the interview that Serrano informed Molina that the officers were investigating a shooting. Not long thereafter, Molina made a third reference to counsel, saying, "honestly officer, you just tell me clearly if I need an attorney." Serrano responded that it was Molina's decision whether to get an attorney.
At approximately 1:40 a.m., the officers stopped questioning Molina for fifteen minutes. Prior to this break in questioning, the officers had remained seated across the table from Molina and Molina appeared relaxed. The officers' and Molina's voices were calm. After the break, however, the atmosphere in the interview room was markedly different. Serrano no longer sat while questioning Molina, but instead stood close to him, talking down at him. Serrano's voice was raised, and he interrupted Molina, not letting him finish his answers.
The interview concluded at 3:15 a.m. on March 31, 2005, at which time the officers drove Molina back to the area of Ruth Street and dropped him off. Later that same day, after speaking with at least one of the eyewitnesses to the shooting, the police arrested Molina and he was charged with Gauoette's murder.
In the state trial court, Molina filed a motion to suppress the statements he made during the police interview, arguing that he had invoked his right to counsel. The motion was deniedafter an evidentiary hearing. Following his trial and conviction, Molina directly appealed his state court conviction and the denial of his motion to suppress to the APC. Molina, 969 N.E.2d at 738. The APC affirmed Molina's conviction on June 13, 2012. Id. Thereafter, Molina applied for further appellate review. Molina, 3 N.E.3d at 586. After granting Molina's application for further review, the SJC affirmed the decision of the APC on January 29, 2014. Id. The SJC concluded that Molina's interview was not custodial for at least the first two hours. Id. at 590. After the first two hours, Serrano's questioning became confrontational and coercive. Id. at 592. The SJC went on to conclude that (1) Molina's statements made during both the noncustodial and custodial portions of the interview were voluntary, and (2) even assuming Molina's Miranda waiver was not valid, the resulting error from admission of the custodial statements was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. at 590-91, 595.
On March 17, 2014, Molina filed the instant petition for federal habeas review of his state court...
To continue reading
Request your trial