Rangel v. Broomfield

• Docket Number: 1:18-cv-01713-ADA
• Decision Date: 21 August 2023
• Parties: PEDRO RANGEL, Petitioner, v. RON BROOMFIELD, Warden of San Quentin State Prison, Respondent.[1]
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California

1

PEDRO RANGEL, Petitioner, v. RON BROOMFIELD, Warden of San Quentin State Prison, Respondent.^[1]

No. 1:18-cv-01713-ADA

United States District Court, E.D. California

August 21, 2023

DEATH PENALTY CASE

ORDER (1) DENYING CLAIMS I-XVIII; (2) DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, and (3) ISSUING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY FOR CLAIMS XIII-XIV

(Doc. No. 38)

CLERK TO VACATE ANY AND ALL SCHEDULED DATES AND SUBSTITUTE RON BROOMFIELD AS RESPONDENT WARDEN AND ENTER JUDGMENT

I. INTRODUCTION

Petitioner Pedro Rangel is a state prisoner, sentenced to death, proceeding with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He is represented in this action for all purposes by D. Jay Ritt, Esq., and Verna J. Wefald, Esq., who were appointed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3599.

Respondent Ron Broomfield is named as Warden of San Quentin State Prison. He is represented in this action by Deputy Attorneys General Kenneth Sokoler and Sally Espinoza.

Before the court for a decision is the petition for writ of habeas corpus filed in this proceeding on February 25, 2020, Claims I-XVIII. (Doc. No. 38.)

Upon careful review of the parties' filings and the relevant case law and for the reasons set out below, the undersigned finds that (1) Claims I-XVIII shall be denied on the merits, (2) the petition shall be denied, and (3) a certificate of appealability shall issue only for Claims XIII-XIV.

II. STATEMENT OF FACTS

This factual summary is taken from the California Supreme Court's summary of the facts in its March 28, 2016 opinion on direct appeal. The summary of facts is presumed correct except to the extent inconsistent with the court's intrinsic review under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2). (28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1); see Kirkpatrick v. Chappell, 950 F.3d 1118, 1131 (9th Cir. 2020), cert. denied, 141 S.Ct. 561 (2020) (“Unlike § 2254(d), § 2254(e)(1)'s application is not limited to claims adjudicated on the merits. Rather, it appears to apply to all factual determinations made by state courts.”); Taylor v. Maddox, 366 F.3d 992, 999 (9th Cir. 2004) overruled on other grounds by Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170, 185, (2011), as recognized by Ybarra v. Gittere, 69 F.4th 1077, 1089 (9th Cir. 2023) (acknowledging Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”) deference to state court factual findings); Vasquez v. Kirkland, 572 F.3d 1029, 1031 n.1 (9th Cir. 2009) (“We rely on the state appellate court's decision for our summary of the facts of the crime.”) Petitioner does not present clear and convincing evidence to the contrary; thus, the court adopts the factual recitations set forth by the state supreme court. Vasquez, 572 F.3d at 1031 n.1.

A. Guilt Phase

On the night of October 7, 1995, defendant, his son Pedro Rangel III (Little Pete),¹ Rafael Avila, and Richard Diaz drove to the Madera home of Chuck Durbin in search of Juan Uribe. Defendant and Little Pete entered the home and shot and killed Durbin and Uribe and wounded Durbin's wife Cynthia (Cindy) Durbin.

---- FOOTNOTE ----

n.1 At trial, the parties and witnesses referred to defendant as “Big Pete” and to his son as “Little Pete.”

-- END FOOTNOTE ----

Little Pete's case was severed from defendant's before trial. Avila fled after the crime but Diaz testified against defendant at trial.² Defendant was also linked to the crime by his statements and by ballistics evidence.

---- FOOTNOTE ----

n.2 Diaz testified before the jury that he pled guilty to violating Penal Code section 32 or accessory after the fact. He had not yet been sentenced but understood it was possible he would serve either prison time or time on probation and was required to tell the truth.

-- END FOOTNOTE ----

1. Prosecution evidence

a. Events before the murders

On September 23, 1995, about two weeks before Uribe's murder, he and Martha Melgoza, the mother of his daughter attended a baptism party at a Madera reception hall. They saw Little Pete arguing with Carlos Romero and David Varela. Uribe was good friends with both Little Pete and Varela. Jesse Candia, Varela's uncle, suggested Little Pete and Varela “fight and get it over with,” but Varela refused, explaining Little Pete had a gun. Candia and Romero told Little Pete to leave the party, and Romero punched Little Pete in the face. Little Pete looked at Uribe and asked him, “[W]hat's up?” and “Juan, why don't you back me up?” Juan shook his head and said, “No” and “It was none of my business.” Little Pete left in his BMW.

Little Pete told Richard Diaz he was upset with Uribe for not backing him up and wanted to get even. Little Pete, Diaz, and Florentino (Tino) Alvarez slowly drove by the baptism party in Little Pete's BMW but did not stop. Diaz described how “everybody started running” and “they shut the front doors.”

Melgoza and Uribe left the party later that evening. As they drove, they were stopped by Little Pete and Tino Alvarez. When Uribe got out of the car to see what the men wanted, Alvarez asked him why he had hit Little Pete. Uribe denied hitting Little Pete, and said Little Pete should know who hit him. Alvarez punched Uribe.

Later that night, Varela was driving a friend home from the baptism party when he saw Uribe, Romero, and several others standing on the street. Little Pete drove by in his BMW with Diaz in the front seat. Several shots were fired out of the passenger side of the BMW. As Varela drove away, more shots were fired. He noticed Little Pete's BMW behind him. A bullet grazed Little Pete's head.

On September 24, 1995, Jesse Rangel, defendant's nephew, who was living in Fresno, learned that his cousin Little Pete had been shot. Jesse³ visited Little Pete in Madera. Tino Alvarez told Jesse that Juan Uribe had shot Little Pete. In retaliation, Jesse and Alvarez fired several bullets into Uribe's car. Jesse did not see Uribe or anyone else in the area, and there had been no discussion of shooting Uribe if they saw him. At trial, Jesse denied ever shooting at Uribe.

---- FOOTNOTE ----

n.3 To avoid confusion, we refer to some Rangel family members by their first names.

-- END FOOTNOTE

b. Events on the night of the murders

On October 7, 1995, Richard Diaz attended a barbecue at defendant's house. Little Pete and Rafael Avila, who was married to defendant's stepdaughter Endora Avila, also were there. Defendant was angry about his son “getting shot in the head” and spoke about “getting back” at Juan Uribe. Defendant said “he wasn't going to let anybody get away with shooting his son in the head,” and wanted to go look for Uribe.

Defendant asked to borrow Avila's car but Avila told defendant he would drive because defendant “was too drunk.” Defendant, Diaz, Little Pete, and Avila got into Avila's car. They drove to Uribe's house but did not see his car there. As they drove to a different location, they noticed Uribe's car parked across the street from victim Durbin's home on East Central Avenue in Madera. Durbin lived with his wife Cindy and three children, who were seven, six, and three years old. The Durbins also had three visitors that night, Juan Uribe, Alvin Areizaga, and Richard Fitzsimmons. Diaz saw people in the house and noticed that two children were watching television in the front room.

Defendant, Little Pete, and Diaz got out of the car, and Avila drove away slowly. About 10:00 p.m., Diaz stood across the street while defendant, armed with a .380-caliber weapon, and Little Pete, armed with a .22-caliber rifle, entered the house through an unlocked screen door.

Little Pete asked where Juan Uribe was. When Uribe appeared, Little Pete asked him: “What's up, Juan Uribe? What's up now?” He then shot and killed Uribe. Durbin ran through the living room but defendant grabbed him and shot him. From across the street, Diaz fired two shots through the living room window to encourage defendant and Little Pete to leave. Defendant and Little Pete ran out of the house, and Diaz stopped Avila, who was driving by. The men got into the car and drove off. Little Pete said that he “got Juan Uribe” and thought he had killed him. Defendant said that he had shot Durbin because he thought he was “running to get a gun.” Defendant accidentally fired two shots in the car while trying to unload his weapon.

Cindy Durbin, Chuck Durbin's wife, testified she heard a big bang and walked into the living room to check on her children. She saw two armed Hispanic men with dark hair and wearing baseball caps standing in the house; she was “80 to 90 percent sure” one of the men was defendant. The men began shooting and one or both “scream[ed]” they were “going to get” Juan and said “Juan was a traitor” and “now he was dead” or “going to die.” Cindy ran into the kitchen where Chuck told her to hide. Chuck ran into the living room. When the shooting stopped, Uribe's bullet-ridden body was on top of Cindy. Cindy had been shot in the abdomen, and bullets had grazed her legs. She found Chuck with bullet holes in his head and neck on the living room floor. He raised his hands to his face and tried to speak but she could not understand him. She took their children into a bedroom and asked Areizaga to call 911.

c. Events after the murders

On the night of October 7, 1995, Endora Avila, defendant's stepdaughter and Rafael Avila's wife, was returning from a church revival when she saw Rafael's car “flying” across Yosemite Street in Madera. When Endora arrived home, Rafael was not there. Rafael came home later that night and “banged on the door like a cop.” He was “[n]ervous” and pulled on his hair. His pants were wet almost to his knees. Rafael removed his clothes and threw them in the trash. Later that night Endora's stepbrother, Little Pete, “bang[ed] on the door” and he and Rafael argued. Endora did not see Rafael the next day, and had only seen him once

...