Rodriguez v. Vaughn

• Decision Date: 02 March 2015
• Docket Number: CIVIL NO. 3:CV-08-1583
• Parties: FELIX W. RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner v. DONALD T. VAUGHN, et al., Respondents
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania

FELIX W. RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner v. DONALD T. VAUGHN, et al., Respondents

CIVIL NO. 3:CV-08-1583

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

March 2, 2015

(Judge Caputo)

MEMORANDUM

I. Introduction

Felix W. Rodriguez, an inmate confined at the Graterford State Correctional Institution, in Graterford, Pennsylvania filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The petition challenges his July 17, 1997, convictions imposed by the Court of Common Pleas for York County, Pennsylvania. (Doc. 12, Pet.) After a jury trial, Mr. Rodriguez was sentenced to an aggregate term of forty to eighty years' imprisonment for criminal homicide and criminal conspiracy to commit murder.

Following careful consideration of the parties' submissions, and for the reasons discussed below, the petition for habeas relief will be denied as well as a certificate of appealability.

II. Background

A. Factual Background

In disposing of Mr. Rodriguez's direct appeal, the Pennsylvania Superior Court provided the following background:

The facts of this case involve numerous parties and events stretching over a period of several days. Late on the night of April 5, 1996, several men broke into a house located at 1048 East Market Street, York County, Pennsylvania. The men then proceeded to assault Jason Nesbit, while asking Nesbit, "[W]here is Adam? Where is the safe? Where is the drugs and money?" (N.T., 7/14/97, Vol. I, at 185). Sometime later, Monique Wells and Michelle Ossorio (a/k/a Michelle Ocasio) returned home and discovered what had occurred. Ossorio had a safe in her room, and the men had stolen $2,500 in cash and a gun. Apparently, Ossorio was holding the gun for Adam Byke, and a large portion of the money belonged to [Felix Rodriguez] (N.T., Vol. II, at 642).

Following her discovery of the above incident, Ossorio immediately called [Rodriguez] and Jason (Will) Colon. [Rodriguez] and Colon thereafter arrived at the house and told Ossorio to call Byke, who was in New York City. After Ossorio reached Byke on the telephone, [Rodriguez] grabbed the phone and told Byke that, "[Y]ou should have taken care of business when you were down here, and you have unfinished business to take care of down here." (N.T. Vol. I, at 308-309.) Ossorio and Wells then went to pick up Byke in New York City. [Rodriguez] and Nesbit drove around York trying to find the people who broke into the house. Although Nesbit could not identify his assailants, he did remember the hat and coat one of them was wearing.

On the evening of April 6 - 7, 1996, all of the parties arrived back at the house. This gathering included [Rodriguez], his brother Eric Rodriguez "E", Colon, Ossorio, Wells, Byke, Nesbit and possibly a man with the street name "Spin" (N.T., Vol. II, at 496.) At some point, the parties began discussing who might be responsible for the burglary. The name of the victim, Edgar Day, came up in theconversation. Day had been seeing Wells so he had access to the house. Additionally, Ossorio had seen Day talking to Montez Martin, and Martin had recently robbed Byke in a manner similar to the robbery the previous evening.

Upon deciding Day was responsible, [Rodriguez], Colon and Eric Rodriguez became very angry, and "they was all saying about going over there and shooting up the place." (N.T., Vol. I, at 314.) Eventually, [Rodriguez] and Colon told Wells to page Day. Wells paged Day once and he did not respond so Wells paged him a second time. After Day called back, Wells and Ossorio went to his house, however, Day would not get in the car. Wells and Ossorio then returned to their house, but appellant told Wells to go back and get Day (N.T., Vol. I, at 316.) Day eventually got into the car with Wells, but upon arriving at Wells' house, Day would not go inside.

At this point, the lights in the house were off, and all of the involved parties were hiding. Wells walked into the house and related the situation. Byke then told Ossorio to go out and get in the car with Wells (N.T., Vol. II, at 502). Ossorio had a gun, and she told Wells to drive down a certain alleyway (N.T., Vols. I & II, at 198, 503). Wells pulled into a parking space, and two cars stopped alongside her car. Ossorio pulled out her gun and ordered Day out of the car. All of the parties exited their respective vehicles, and Byke walked over and shot Day in the head. Wells then started screaming and was told, at gunpoint, to shut up.

Following the killing, the parties fled the scene. Upon arriving back at the house, [Rodriguez] told Wells to go to Day's house and ask if anyone had seen Day (N.T., Vol I, at 322-323). He thereafter ordered Wells and Ossorio to take Byke back to New York (N.T., Vol. I, at 202-203, 324). Finally, [Rodriguez] and his brother threatened Wells, saying that we "know where your kids are at, and we will kill your kids if you say anything to the cops." (N.T., Vol. I, at 323.)

In August of 1996, the York County Drug Task Force executed search warrants which resulted in the arrests of [Rodriguez] and Colon. Subsequently, the Commonwealth filed two separate criminal actions against appellant. Inone action, appellant was charged with possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance¹ and criminal conspiracy.² No. 3541 C.A. 1996 (York Co.). In another action, [Rodriguez] was charge with murder of the first, second and third degrees, as well as criminal conspiracy. No. 4073 C.A. 1996 (York Co.) By Order dated January 2, 1997, the trial court ordered the above actions consolidated for trial. Thereafter, appellant pled guilty to the drug charges, and [Rodriguez] and Colon received a joint trial on the homicide charges.

(Doc. 27-2, ECF pp. 327-330, Commonwealth v. Rodriguez, 726 A.2d 1082 (Pa. Super. Sept. 2, 1998)(Table, No. 870 HBG 1997).) Mr. Rodriguez plead guilty to possession with intent to deliver and criminal conspiracy with intent to deliver on July 14, 1997. Sentencing in that matter was deferred pending the resolution of his homicide trial. See Commonwealth v. Rodriguez, CP-67-CR-0003541-1996 (York Ct. Com. Pl.)(drug case docket sheet).³

In July 1997, a jury found Mr. Rodriguez guilty of third-degree murder and criminal conspiracy to commit homicide. See Commonwealth v. Rodriguez, CP-67-CR-0004073-1996 (York Ct. Com. Pl.)(homicide case docket sheet). On August 18, 1997, he was sentenced to an aggregate term of forty to eighty years' imprisonment. He "received consecutive terms of imprisonment, except for the two drug-related offenses ran concurrently with federal sentences arising out of the same conduct." (Doc. 27-2, ECF pp. 317-321, Sentencing Tr.) He received two consecutive twentyto forty years sentences for the third degree murder and conspiracy to commit third degree murder charges. (Id., ECF p. 320 - 321.) As to the possession with intent to deliver drugs, Mr. Rodriguez received a five to ten years sentence. He was given an additional five to ten year sentence for the conspiracy to commit possession of drugs with intent to deliver which was set to run concurrent to his federal sentence. (Id.)

B. Proceedings on Direct Appeal

Mr. Rodriguez filed a direct appeal challenging comments made during the prosecutor's closing argument as to his personal experience as the head of a Drug Task Force. Mr. Rodriguez also claimed his trial counsel was ineffective for not requesting a jury instruction concerning Michelle Ossorio's prior conviction for a crimen falsi offense; that the evidence submitted at trial was insufficient to support the convictions of third-degree murder and conspiracy; and that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence.⁴ (Doc. 27-2, ECF p. 326-336, Commonwealth v. Rodriguez, 726 A.2d 1082 (Pa. Super. Sept. 2, 1998)(Table, No. 870 HBG 1997)). The Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the murder conviction and sentence.⁵ The Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied review on February 22, 1999. (Id., ECF p. 337, Commonwealth v. Rodriguez, 737 A.2d 741 (Pa. Feb. 22, 1999)(Table, No.0866 M.D. Alloc. 1998).) Mr. Rodriguez did not petition the United States Supreme Court for certiorari.

C. Proceedings on Post-Conviction Relief

On November 29, 1999, Mr. Rodriguez filed a timely pro se petition for post-conviction relief under the Pennsylvania Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa. CONS. STAT. ANN. §§ 9541-9546. (Id., ECF pp. 338-344, PCRA Pet.) On February 29, 2000, after Attorney Eugene Campbell was appointed to represent Mr. Rodriguez, a hearing was held before the Honorable John H. Chronister. (Id., ECF pp. 345-401.) The trial court, now acting as the PCRA court, denied Mr. Rodriguez's petition. (Id., ECF pp. 402-409.) Mr. Rodriguez filed a timely notice of appeal to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania. (Id., ECF p. 410; see also Commonwealth v. Rodriguez, 2001 WL 34382506 (Pa. Super. Aug. 6, 2001), Appellant's Br.)

On appeal, the following claims were raised: (1) ineffectiveness of trial and appellate counsel for failing to object to the prosecutor's closing statement during which the prosecutor commented on Mr. Rodriguez's decision not to testify;⁶ (2) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to hire an investigator, impeach witnesses orpresent character testimony; (3) whether Mr. Rodriguez's prior counsel's conduct constituted harmless error; and (4) did the Commonwealth rebut the harm to Mr. Rodriguez caused by the prosecutor's closing argument beyond a reasonable doubt. (Id., ECF p. 417, Commonwealth v. Rodriguez, 804 A.3d 60 (Pa. Super. May 20, 2002) (Table, No. 1969 MDA 2000).) In addressing Mr. Rodriguez's appeal, the superior court noted that "[a]lthough Appellant's judgment of sentence reflects two separate criminal convictions, his direct appeal and the present petition under the PCRA concern only the action compromising the murder and conspiracy charges." (Id., ECF p. 416.)

With respect to Mr. Rodriguez's layered ineffectiveness of counsel claim, the state appellate court held that "[e]ven if we were to find...