REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge to conduct hearings, including an evidentiary hearing, if necessary, and to submit proposed findings and recommendations for disposition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(B) and (C) and, as applicable, Rule 8(b) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases. Upon review of the entire record, I have determined that a federal evidentiary hearing is unnecessary.1 For the following reasons, I recommend that the petition for habeas corpus relief be DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
Petitioner Carlos Rodriguez is a convicted inmate incarcerated in the Davide Wade Correction Center in Homer, Louisiana.2 Rodriguez, along with co-defendants Gina Scramuzza, Erly Montoya, and Luis Rodriguez-Hernandez, were charged by a bill of indictment in St. Tammany Parish with first degree murder of Mario Scramuzza.3 Rodriguez pled not guilty onMay 12, 2009.4 The Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeal summarized the established facts at trial as follows:
On or about February 27, 2009, Sergeant Brett Ibert and Deputy Shane Bennett of the St. Tammany Parish Sheriff's Office (STPSO) were dispatched to 44 Green Hill Drive in Covington, due to an initial 911 call in reference to a missing person, followed by a subsequent complaint by the same caller of a possible burglary. When the police arrived at the residence, the complainant, Gina Scramuzza, stated that her husband, Mario Scramuzza, Jr. (the victim), was missing and the house had been ransacked. The officers entered the residence and observed the bedrooms in disarray with opened drawers and clothes tossed around. As Sergeant Ibert escorted Mrs. Scramuzza out of the residence in preparation to process the scene, Deputy Bennett called him to the laundry room where the victim's body was on the floor face down with a blue and white towel3 under his head. Although he saw the victim's body in the residence, Sergeant Ibert did not initially inform Mrs. Scramuzza, who was outside when the body was discovered. As [t]he officers placed Mrs. Scramuzza inside of the air conditioned police unit, Mrs. Scramuzza abruptly became distraught and asked, "[O]h, my God, what is it[?]"
Mrs. Scramuzza was subsequently transported to the Major Crimes Office for questioning. After Mrs. Scramuzza was informed of and waived her rights pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444-445, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 1612, 16 L.Ed. 2d 694 (1966), she was interviewed by STPSO Detective Vance Vitter and Detective Stacey Callendar. Early on, Mrs. Scramuzza expressed her desire to speak with the female officer (Detective Callendar) alone. Thus, Detective Vitter excused himself from the interview room and monitored the interview from the observation room. During the interview, Mrs. Scramuzza confirmed that she was having an extramarital relationship with the defendant, and confessed to plotting the victim's death and to specifically hiring the defendant to commit the murder.6 She stated that the defendant and two unknown males who sat in the back seat entered her vehicle on Friday afternoon.7 She specifically indicated that she picked up the defendant and the unknown males, whose faces she did not see as she was instructed not to turn around, from Walmart and dropped them off at her residence, knowing that they would murder the victim. At that point, Detective Callendar drafted arrest warrants for Mrs. Scramuzza and the defendant.8
According to Dr. Michael DeFatta, the St. Tammany Parish Coroner's Office expert in forensic pathology who performed the autopsy on March 1, 2009, the victim suffered trauma to the neck, blanching on the left side of his face, and injuries to his forehead, nose, bottom lip, wrists, hand, ribs, and knee.9 Dr. DeFatta testified that in his opinion, the victim was face down when he died, and his cause of death was asphyxia due to strangulation.
The defendant gave a recorded police statement on Sunday, March 1, 2009, after his arrest and upon being advised of his Miranda rights and signing the waiver of rights form. The defendant admitted to knowing Mrs. Scramuzza, but only to having a non-physical relationship with her. He further confirmed that he was aware that Mrs. Scramuzza was married, and that he did not inform her that he was married. According to the defendant, approximately three months after the relationship started, Mrs. Scramuzza began complaining about her husband. The defendant denied any knowledge of the victim's death and stated that he was home at the time of the offense and had not been on the Northshore (the Covington/Mandeville area) any time that Friday or since.
During a subsequent interview conducted the following day, after being re-Mirandized, the defendant was shown surveillance photographs of himself at the Northshore Walmart on Friday, February 27, 2009. At that point, he admitted to being in the area, and to meeting with Mrs. Scramuzza, indicating that she wanted him to pawn or take possession of some of her jewelry. However, as to whether the defendant killed the victim, the defendant "didn't deviate from any information that he had provided previously," in denying he killed the victim.10
3Suspected blood was on the towel located underneath the victim's head and a second towel with suspected blood on it was located under a pile of clothes near the victim's body. The police further collected an approximate forty-four inch red, white, and blue looped cord or rope from the laundry room counter.
6 On Sunday, March 1, 2009, the police re-Mirandized and re-interviewed Mrs. Scramuzza to obtain a recap of her confession after learning that the audio of the initial VHS recording was distorted. A digital voice recording of the recap was fully captured.
7 Keith Plaisance, IT director of United States Environmental Services, the defendant's place of employment at the time of the offense, testified that on February 26, 2009, the defendant sent an email notification that he would not be attending work on February 27, and February 28, due to a "very bad" family matter. Plaisance provided the police with tracking data for the defendant's work vehicle for that time period. Detailed coordinates showed the defendant's "comings and goings" on February 27, 2009. The victim's truck was located in a motel parking lot in Walker, Louisiana.
8 Before the instant trial, Mrs. Scramuzza pled guilty to first degree murder with the agreement by the State to not seek the death penalty and the imposition of a sentence of life imprisonment.
9 The injuries to the victim's wrists included banding and bruising, consistent with his being bound with zip ties.
10 Items located in the defendant's work truck included two Rolex watches and a bracelet engraved with Mrs. Scramuzza's first name, Gina, and boxes of blue nitrile gloves.5
A myriad of pretrial motions were filed by defense counsel. On June 5, 2012, Rodriguez filed a pro se motion for appointment of capital defense counsel, which the state trial court denied.6On July 13, 2012, the Public Defender advised the trial court that the Office was seeking to appoint new counsel.7 On August 20, 2012, attorneys Bruce Unangst, II, David Price, and Bruce Dodd enrolled as counsel for Rodriguez.8 Defense counsel filed many additional motions, including several motions to continue over the following years.9
On April 11, 2016, the prosecution agreed to remove the death penalty as a sentencing option.10 Rodriguez went to trial before a jury on May 16 through 20, 2016, and the jury unanimously found Rodriguez guilty as charged.11 Rodriguez filed a motion for post-verdict judgment of acquittal,12 which the state trial court denied on June 16, 2016.13 After Rodriguez waived legal delays, the trial court sentenced him to life imprisonment without the benefit of parole, probation or suspension of sentence.14
On direct appeal to the Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeal, Rodriquez's appointed counsel asserted two errors:
(1) Insufficient evidence supported his conviction; and(2) The trial court erred in denying his post-verdict judgment of acquittal.15
On September 15, 2017, the Louisiana First Circuit affirmed Rodriguez's conviction and sentence.16 The court found that the detailed accounts of the robbery and murder provided by Gina Scramuzza, Montoya, and Rodriguez-Hernandez were consistent with DNA evidence, phone records, GPS coordinates, and surveillance footage as well as evidence recovered during the execution of warrants.17 The court found that there was overwhelming evidence such that a reasonable juror could conclude that Rodriguez was guilty of first degree murder.18 The court concluded that the combined assignments of error lacked merit.19 Rodriguez did not file a writ application with the Louisiana Supreme Court.
On September 30, 2018, Rodriguez filed an application for post-conviction relief asserting four claims:
(1) The time limitation for prosecution in his case expired prior to the commencement of trial;
(2) The State committed prosecutorial misconduct when the prosecutor vouched for the truthfulness and credibility of a state witness during closing argument;
(3) Ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to: (a) investigate and prepare a defense; (b) file a motion to quash based on the expiration of the time limitations of LA. CODE CRIM. P. art. 578; (c) request funds to hire investigators and expert witnesses; (d) object to the prosecutor's rebuttal argument; and
(4) Defense counsel denied him of his constitutional right to testify at trial.20
On October 9, 2019, the state trial court denied the application, finding that Rodriguez's first claim lacked merit as he was prosecuted within the statutory time limitations.21 The court also found meritless Rodriguez's claims of prosecutorial misconduct, explaining that the...
