Quintana v. Trani
Decision Date | 25 March 2019 |
Docket Number | Civil Action No. 15-cv-01569-PAB |
Parties | ANGEL QUINTANA, Applicant, v. TRAVIS TRANI and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF COLORADO, Respondents. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Colorado |
The matter before the Court is an Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, filed pro se, by Angel Quintana. Docket No. 1. Having considered the Application, Respondents' Answer, Applicant's Traverse ("Reply"), and the state court record, the Court denies the Application for the reasons discussed below.
Applicant was convicted by a jury in Denver District Court Case No. 04CR2291 of criminal attempt to commit reckless manslaughter, first degree assault, and two counts of second degree kidnapping with a deadly weapon. (State Court Record ("R.), Court File at 279-287).1 The Colorado Court of Appeals summarized the evidence at Applicant's trial as follows:
Docket No. 12-3, at 2-4. See also R., Court File at 296-97.
The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed Applicant's convictions and sentence in People v. Quintana (Quintana I), No. 07CA1381 (Colo. Ct. App. Oct. 28, 2010) (unpublished)). Docket No. 12-3. On March 14, 2011, the Colorado Supreme Court denied Applicant's petition for certiorari review. Docket No. 12-5.
On January 3, 2012, Applicant filed a motion for state post-conviction relief pursuant to Colo. Crim. P. Rule 35(c), which the state district court denied. The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed in People v. Quintana (Quintana II), No. 12CA1926 (Colo. Ct. App. Sept. 4, 2014) (unpublished)). Docket No. 12-8. The Colorado Supreme Court denied Applicant's petition for certiorari review on April 20, 2015. Docket No. 12-10.
On July 23, 2015, Applicant filed a § 2254 Application purporting to raise approximately 36 claims for relief. Docket No. 1. After reviewing the Respondents' Pre-Answer Response and Applicant's Reply, the Court issued an order on November 4, 2015 dismissing several claims as procedurally barred. Docket No. 19 at 12-19. The Court further concluded that the following claims of trial court error, which are asserted in the § 2254 Application, were properly exhausted in Applicant's direct appeal proceeding and were ripe for review on the merits:
Docket No. 19 at 12-13, 19; see also Quintana I, Docket No. 12-3.
Although Applicant exhausted two additional claims in his direct appeal proceeding, he did not raise them in the § 2254 Application.2 Respondents state in the Answer that they have not addressed the merits of claims that were exhausted in the Colorado appellate courts, but not asserted in the § 2254 Application. Docket No. 39 at 4 n.3. In the Reply, Applicant does not dispute Respondents' statement or contend that he meant to assert the omitted claims in his Application. See Docket No. 43 at 3, summarizing the claims raised by Applicant. Consequently, the Court's review of claims of trial court error is limited to the three claims identified above.
The Court further concluded in the November 4 Order that the following Sixth Amendment claims asserted by Applicant were presented to the Colorado Court of Appeals in Applicant's first state post-conviction proceeding, and were properly exhausted in the state courts:
Docket No. 19 at 13-14; Quintana II, Docket No. 12-8, at 3, 6-13.
The Court also determined that Applicant presented other ineffective assistance claims that were not exhausted in the state courts and, therefore, were anticipatorily procedurally defaulted. Docket No. 19 at 4-5, 15-19. However, because Applicant was not represented by counsel in his state post-conviction proceeding, the Court deferred ruling on the claims pending a determination of whether there was cause for the procedural default under the standard articulated in Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 19 (2012). Id.at 17-18. In Martinez, the Supreme Court held:
Where, under state law, claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel must be raised in an initial-review collateral proceeding, a procedural default will not bar a federal habeas court from hearing a substantial claim of ineffective assistance at trial if, in the initial-review collateral proceeding, there was no counsel or counsel in that proceeding was ineffective.
Respondents were directed to file an Answer addressing the merits of the claims delineated above, and to address whether the procedurally defaulted ineffective assistance claims are substantial under Martinez. Id. at 19.
Thereafter, Applicant filed a motion to stay the § 2254 Application so he could attempt to exhaust his unexhausted ineffective assistance claims in a second post-conviction motion he had filed in the state courts. Docket No. 21. On December 28, 2015, the Court issued an order staying the case pending the Colorado courts' determination of Applicant's second post-conviction motion. Docket No. 24. The Colorado Court of Appeals issued a decision affirming the state district court's denial of post-conviction relief on March 15, 2018. See People v. Angel Quintana (Quintana III), No. 16CA0469 (Colo. App. March 15, 2018) (unpublished) Docket No. 28-1. Applicant's petition for certiorari review was denied on September 17, 2018. Docket No. 34-1.
On November 18, 2018, Respondents filed an Answer addressing the merits of the properly exhausted claims and the applicability of Martinez to the unexhausted claims. Docket No. 39. Applicant filed a Reply on January 11, 2019. Docket No. 43.
Title 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) provides that a writ of habeas corpus may not be issued with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in state court unless the state court adjudication:
To continue reading
Request your trial