Renteria v. Davis
| Decision Date | 12 February 2019 |
| Docket Number | EP-15-CV-62-FM |
| Parties | DAVID SANTIAGO RENTERIA, TDCJ # 999460, Petitioner, v. LORIE DAVIS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Texas |
David Santiago Renteria petitions the Court for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241(d), 2254. Renteria challenges the death sentence imposed by a state trial court after a jury found him guilty of capital murder. After reviewing the record and for the reasons discussed below, the Court finds Renteria is not entitled to federal habeas relief. Accordingly, the Court will deny his petition. The Court will also deny him a certificate of appealability.
On November 18, 2001, a five-year-old girl named Alexandra Flores disappeared from a Walmart store in El Paso, Texas. See Renteria v. State (Renteria I), 206 S.W.3d 689 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (). The next day, her nude, partially burned body was discovered in an alley sixteen miles from the Walmart. Her autopsy revealed she was manually strangled before she was set on fire. A latent print lifted from the plastic bag found over her head matched Renteria's palm print.
Several people observed Renteria and his van at the Walmart on the day Flores disappeared. A Walmart security guard recalled briefly speaking with Renteria because he left his van running outside the store. Walmart surveillance videos showed a man—wearing clothing like the attire worn by Renteria earlier that day—walking out of the store with Flores. A search of Renteria's van disclosed blood stains with Flores's DNA.
Police arrested Renteria on December 3, 2001. They obtained a written custodial statement. See Reporter's R., vol. 69 (Voluntary Statement of Accused), pp. 11-15, ECF No. 78-4.1
In his statement, Renteria blamed a Barrio Azteca gang member—nicknamed "Flaco"—and several other people for Flores's murder. He explained he met Flaco while serving time in prison, but claimed he did not know the other people. Renteria maintained he participated in the offense out of fear the other participants would harm his family. He claimed he was "scared and . . . didn't know how to react . . . because they were threatening [his] family." Id. at 13. Renteria asserted he only lured Flores out of the Walmart and helped Flaco and the others burn and dispose of her body.
At the time of his arrest, Renteria was a registered sex offender on probation for committing an indecency offense against a seven-year-old girl. Renteria v. State (Renteria II), AP-74,829, 2011 WL 1734067, at *2 . He also had three prior convictions for driving while intoxicated.
Shortly before trial, Renteria moved for a continuance after the State disclosed the victim's mother was the former wife of a Barrio Azteca gang leader. Clerk's R., vol. 2 (part 2 of 3), pp. 14-16 (Mot. for Continuance), ECF No. 73-7; Renteria I, 206 S.W.3d at 698-702. Renteria claimed the late disclosure of this relationship prevented him from adequately investigating whether Flores's murder was gang-related, as he suggested in his December 3, 2001, statement to the police.
The State explained it had just discovered the relationship between the victim's mother and the Barrio Azteca gang leader. Clerk's R., vol. 2 (part 2 of 3), p. 10 (DistrictAttorney Letter), ECF No. 73-7; Renteria I, 206 S.W.3d at 698-702. The State added the marriage ended over ten years before Flores's kidnapping, and the ex-husband of the victim's mother became a gang member sometime after their divorce. The State also asserted the victim's family members maintained there were no ill feelings or problems arising out of the failed marriage.
The trial court denied the continuance. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals later noted "[t]he record . . . reflects that defense counsel knew that appellant . . . claimed in his December 3rd statement, approximately two weeks after the offense and long before trial, that the victim's murder was gang-related." Renteria I, 206 S.W.3d at 702.
The trial court also did not admit Renteria's December 3, 2001, statement into evidence at trial because it was self-serving. Renteria I, 206 S.W.3d at 694. According to Texas law:
"self-serving declarations of the accused are ordinarily inadmissible in his behalf, unless they come under some exception, such as: being part of the res gestae of the offense or arrest, or part of the statement or conversation previously proved by the State, or being necessary to explain or contradict acts or declarations first offered by the State."
Allridge v. State, 762 S.W.2d 146, 152 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988) (quoting Singletary v. State, 509 S.W.2d 572, 576 (Tex. Crim. App.1974)). Furthermore, none of the evidence admitted at trial—including the Walmart surveillance videos—supported Renteria's claim that others were involved in kidnapping and murdering Flores. Renteria I, 206 S.W.3d at 694 n.2.
"The State's trial theory was that Renteria, who was a complete stranger to the victim, committed the offense alone." Renteria I, 206 S.W.3d at 694 n.2. Renteria did not raise a duress defense. The jury found Renteria guilty of capital murder.
According to the Supreme Court, "a state capital sentencing system must: (1) rationally narrow the class of death-eligible defendants; and (2) permit a jury to render areasoned, individualized sentencing determination based on a death-eligible defendant's record, personal characteristics, and the circumstances of his crime." Kansas v. Marsh, 548 U.S. 163, 173-74 (2006).
The Texas capital sentencing statute in force at the time of Renteria's offense set forth two "special issues" for a jury to decide before sentencing. Under the first special issue—the future dangerousness issue—the jury must decide "whether there is a probability that the defendant would commit criminal acts of violence that would constitute a continuing threat to society." Tex. Crim. Proc. Code art. 37.071 § 2(b)(1) (Vernon 2001). If the jury unanimously answered this question in the affirmative, it must then consider a second special issue. Under the second special issue—the mitigation issue—the jury must determine "[w]hether, taking into consideration all of the evidence, including the circumstances of the offense, the defendant's character and background, and the personal moral culpability of the defendant, there is a sufficient mitigating circumstance or circumstances to warrant that a sentence of life imprisonment . . . rather than a death sentence be imposed." Id. § 2(e)(1). Texas law required the trial court to instruct the jurors (1) they must return an answer of "yes" or "no" on the mitigation issue, and (2) they may only answer "no" if they unanimously agree, and they may not answer "yes" unless ten or more jurors agreed. Id. § 2(f).
Based upon the jury's answers to the special issues, the trial court set Renteria's punishment at death.
On direct appeal, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed Renteria's conviction, but vacated his sentence. Renteria I, 206 S.W.3d at 710. It held the trial court denied Renteria his federal constitutional rights when it prohibited the defense from introducing evidence of Renteria's remorse. Renteria expressed remorse in his statement to the police. But a state expert claimed Renteria would be a future danger because he lacked remorse. And the State argued during closing that Renteria made no statement of remorse.Id. at 694-99. The Court of Criminal Appeals remanded Renteria's case for a new punishment trial. Id. at 710.
Renteria filed a motion to submit a comprehensive, 44-page jury questionnaire before jury selection for his punishment retrial. Clerk's R., vol. 3 (Mem. of Law in Supp. of Def's' Right to Submit a Comprehensive Capital Murder Juror Questionnaire), pp. 18-67, ECF No. 78-20; Reporter's R., vol. 77 ([Proposed] Juror Questionnaire), pp. 87-130, ECF No. 82-9. The trial court heard argument and denied the request. Id. at 68. The court instead used its own, 42-page jury questionnaire, which included substantive areas of inquiry like those in Renteria's proposed questionnaire. Reporter's R., vol. 2, pp. 6-14, ECF No. 79-14; Reporter's R., vol. 77 (Juror Questionnaire), pp. 21-62, ECF No. 82-9.
During individual voir dire, the trial court limited Renteria's questions about juror views on specific mitigating evidence. Clerk's R., vol. 9 (Mot. for New Trial), pp. 68-79, ECF No. 79-12. The trial court denied Renteria's for-cause challenges to 22 prospective jurors. Id. at pp. 89-135. But the trial court also granted Renteria seven additional peremptory challenges, giving him a total of 22 challenges.2 Reporter's R., vol. 28 (voir dire of Robert Crosby), p. 63, ECF No. 80-20; Reporter's R., vol. 29 (voir dire of Robert L. Martinez), p. 233, not scanned into ECF; Reporter's R., vol. 30 (voir dire of Margaret A. Jackson), p. 69, not scanned into ECF; Reporter's R., vol. 34 (voir dire of Daniel Gurany), p. 66, not scanned into ECF.
The State presented evidence of Flores's murder at Renteria's second punishment trial. See Renteria II, 2011 WL 1734067, at *1-3 (). The State also presented evidence of Renteria's troubles with the law in the years leading up to Flores's murder.
The State showed that in 1992, Renteria was accused by a seven-year-old girl of molesting her in her home. Renteria pleaded guilty to indecency with a child in 1994, and was placed on deferred-adjudication probation for ten years.
The State further showed that while on probation, Renteria committed driving while intoxicated (DWI) offenses in 1995, 1997, and 2000. He pleaded...
To continue reading
Request your trial