Recktenwald v. Baca

• Decision Date: 29 April 2021
• Docket Number: Case No.: 3:15-cv-00187-RCJ-CLB
• Parties: PAUL RECKTENWALD, Petitioner v. ISIDRO BACA, et al., Respondents.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Nevada

PAUL RECKTENWALD, Petitioner v. ISIDRO BACA, et al., Respondents.

Case No.: 3:15-cv-00187-RCJ-CLB

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA

April 29, 2021

Order

I.INTRODUCTION

This case is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, by Paul Recktenwald, a Nevada prisoner.This case is before this Court for adjudication of the merits of Recktenwald's remaining claims.This Court denies Recktenwald's habeas petition, denies him a certificate of appealability, and directs the Clerk of the Court to enter judgment accordingly.

II.BACKGROUND

The victim, M.H., and her family, which consisted of M.H.'s mother, three sisters and three brothers, lived with Recktenwald from the beginning of 1995 until June 1995 in Pahrump, Nevada.ECF No. 80at 27.M.H. was placed in foster care in California in June 1995 due to her mother's alcohol abuse and failure to care for her children.Id.;see alsoECF No. 79at 48.Near the end of September 1995, when M.H. was fourteen years old, M.H.'s foster father dropped her off at school one morning, but instead of entering the school, M.H. went across the street to call her grandmother.ECF No. 79 at. 51.Recktenwald was waiting for M.H. and told her that he would drive her back to Pahrump to her grandmother's house.Id. at 51-52.Instead of going to her grandmother's house, Recktenwald drove M.H. to his house.Id. at 53.While M.H. was at Recktenwald's house for approximately a week, he gave her "a lot" of drugs and would not allow her to leave.Id. at 54-55, 58, 62, 65.Recktenwald told M.H. that he loved her, that he wanted to marry her, and that he wanted her to have his baby.Id. at 56, 57. M.H. testified that Recktenwald had nonconsensual sexual intercourse with her more than once.Id. at 60;see alsoECFNo. 79-2at 16, 20-21, 27(testimony of Deputy Sheriff Dawn Kelley that M.H. told her the nonconsensual sexual intercourse with Recktenwald happened twice, once on September 28, 1995, and once on September 29, 1995).M.H. was able to escape after calling her grandmother's neighbor.ECF No. 79at 66.

More than a year later in October 1996, when M.H. was fifteen years old, M.H. ran away from her grandmother's house in Pahrump, Nevada, to be with her mother.Id. at 69-70. M.H.'s mother took M.H. with her to Recktenwald's house and later left M.H. there.Id. at 70-71. M.H. testified that Recktenwald again had nonconsensual sexual intercourse with her.Id. at 71-72;see alsoECFNo. 79-2at 16-17(testimony of Deputy Kelley that M.H. told her that she was at Recktenwald's residence for four days, and during that time, Recktenwald had sexual intercourse with her approximately fifteen times, seven or eight of which were nonconsensual).Recktenwald again gave M.H. methamphetamine, would not allow her to leave, and would tell M.H. that he loved her.Id. at 73, 77.The police removed M.H. from Recktenwald's residence.Id. at 77.

On October 24, 1997, a jury found Recktenwald guilty of seven counts of sexual assault, six counts of statutory sexual seduction, two counts of possession of a controlled substance, and one count of kidnapping.ECFNo. 80-2.At sentencing, the state district court set aside the statutory sexual seduction counts as lesser-included offenses of the sexual assault counts.ECFNo. 80-11at 4.On February 10, 1998, the state district court adjudicated Recktenwald a habitual criminal and sentenced him as follows: eight terms of life with the possibility of parole with an additional eight terms of life without the possibility of parole for the habitual offender enhancements and two terms of 12 to 48 months.Id. at 25-26;see alsoECFNo. 80-13at 4-8.The judgment of conviction was filed on February 12, 1998, and the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the convictions on January 25, 2000.ECFNo. 80-13, 81-19.The Nevada Supreme Court denied Recktenwald's petition for rehearing and petition for en banc reconsideration.ECFNo. 81-23, 81-28.

On December 6, 2000, Recktenwald, acting in pro se, filed a state habeas petition.ECF No. 82.The state district court appointed nine different attorneys to represent Recktenwald.SeeECFNo. 84-1at 2.On August 11, 2011, almost eleven years after the original petition was filed, Recktenwald filed a counseled, supplemental state habeas petition.ECFNo. 83-2.On March 21, 2013, the state district court denied the petition.No. 84-1.On April 10, 2014, the Nevada Supreme Court issued an order of limited remand, directing the state district court to enter an order with specific findings of fact and conclusions of law.ECFNo. 84-26.On June 6, 2014, the state district court issued its amended order denying Recktenwald's petition.ECFNo. 84-29.On November 3, 2014, the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the denial of the petition.ECFNo. 8434.The Nevada Supreme Court denied Recktenwald's petition for rehearing and petition for en banc reconsideration.ECF No. 85, 85-5.

Recktenwald, acting in pro se, dispatched his federal habeas petition for mailing on or about March 25, 2015.ECF No. 5.The Respondents moved to dismiss Recktenwald's petition on August 27, 2015.ECF No. 35.This Court appointed counsel for Recktenwald and denied the Respondents' motion to dismiss without prejudice to renew on November 9, 2105.ECF No. 67.

Recktenwald filed a counseled, amended federal habeas petition on January 8, 2016.ECF No. 74.The Respondents moved to dismiss the amended petition on February 18, 2016.ECF No. 86.Recktenwald moved for a stay of consideration regarding the motion to dismiss pending his request to file a second-amended petition and moved for leave to file a second-amended petition.ECF No. 87, 94.This Court granted the motion for leave to file a second-amended petition, denied the Respondents' motion to dismiss without prejudice as moot, and denied Recktenwald's motion to stay consideration of the Respondents' motion to dismiss as moot.ECF No. 97.

Recktenwald filed a counseled, second-amended federal habeas petition on September 16, 2016.ECF No. 98.Recktenwald's second-amended petition alleged the following violations of his federal constitutional rights:

1.The state district court allowed in evidence of prior bad acts.

2.The state district court allowed in evidence of inadmissible expert witness testimony and inadmissible hearsay testimony and erroneously excluded his impeachment evidence.

3.The state district court erred in denying his motion to suppress.

4.There was insufficient evidence presented at trial to support a finding of guilt of the charged crimes beyond a reasonable doubt.

5.The State engaged in prosecutorial misconduct.

6.The state district court erred in failing to grant his motion for a new trial based upon instances of juror misconduct.

7.His trial counsel was ineffective:

A.His trial counsel failed to investigate and present exculpatory testimony from Angelique Marker, Jennifer Hoadley, and Terri Miller.

B.His trial counsel had failures regarding the testimony of M.H.

C.His trial counsel failed to effectively challenge Dr. Richitt's testimony.

D.His trial counsel failed to impeach Charles Moore.

E.His trial counsel failed to impeach Michael Dunn.

F.His trial counsel failed to impeach Debra Coleman.

G.His trial counsel failed to move to exclude the testimony of Linda and Mary Baumgartner.

H.His trial counsel elicited evidence of his prior convictions in cross-examination.

I.His trial counsel failed to request a transition jury instruction.

J.His trial counsel failed to object to the State's improper sentencing argument.

K.His trial counsel failed to object to the State's closing argument.

L.His trial counsel failed to seek the dismissal of the indictment and M.H.'s testimony because they did not provide him with adequate notice.

8.The State failed to disclose material exculpatory evidence and presented false evidence at trial.

9.His appellate counsel failed to raise meritorious issues on appeal.

The Respondents filed a motion to dismiss Recktenwald's second-amended federal habeas petition.ECF No. 99.This Court granted the motion in part. ECF No. 111.Specifically, this Court dismissed Grounds One, Two, Six, and Nine as procedurally barred; dismissed the Sixth Amendment claim in Ground Five as procedurally barred; dismissed all claims in Ground Eight as procedurally barred, except the claim that the victim told the State that she had lied at the preliminary hearing but the State failed to disclose that evidence and presented false evidence at trial; dismissed Ground Three as non-cognizable; and deferred a decision on the subparts of Ground Seven until the merits disposition.Id. at 16-17.

The Respondents filed an answer to the remaining grounds in Recktenwald's second-amended petition on November 20, 2017.ECF No. 113.Recktenwald filed a reply on February 20, 2018.ECF No. 117.

III.STANDARD OF REVIEW

28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) sets forth the standard of review generally applicable in habeas corpus cases under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act ("AEDPA"):

An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings unless the adjudication of the claim --

(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or

(2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.

A state court decision is contrary to clearly established Supreme Court precedent, within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2254, "if the state court applies a rule that contradicts the governing law set forth in [the Supreme Court's]cases" or "if the state court confronts a set of facts that are materially indistinguishable from a decision of...