Sanders v. Arnold

• Decision Date: 26 July 2017
• Docket Number: Case No. 14-cv-03610-YGR (PR)
• Parties: LOUIS SANDERS, Petitioner, v. ERIC ARNOLD, Warden, Respondent.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of California

LOUIS SANDERS, Petitioner, v. ERIC ARNOLD, Warden,¹ Respondent.

Case No. 14-cv-03610-YGR (PR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

July 26, 2017

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS; AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

Petitioner Louis Sanders, a state prisoner currently incarcerated at California State Prison - Solano, brings the instant pro se habeas action under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 to challenge his 2011 conviction and sentence rendered in the Alameda County Superior Court in connection with two shooting deaths in September 2007. On February 7, 2011, Petitioner and his co-defendant, Marrin Hughes ("Hughes"), were each convicted of two counts of first degree murder as well as one count of possession of a firearm by a felon. 2CT 329-337, 340-343, 553-560. The jury also found true multiple-murder and firearm-use allegations. 2CT 553-560. According to the state appellate court, "[s]everal witnesses placed [Petitioner] at the scene and identified him as the shooter of the first victim, but only one witness, a 13-year-old boy, connected Hughes to the murders." People v. Hughes, et al., No. A131963, 2013 WL 960130, *1 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 13, 2013) (brackets added). The court further added: "The boy, who was well-acquainted with the defendants and the victims, testified he saw Hughes emerge to gun down the second victim immediately after [Petitioner] shot the first victim." Id. The operative petition in this action is the amended petition, which raises thirteen claims. Dkts. 10 at 5; 10-1 at 15-41, 126-202, 209-210.² Having read and considered the papers filed in connection with this matter and being fully informed, the Court hereby DENIES all claims in the amended petition for the reasons set forth below.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background

The California Court of Appeal handled the direct appeals filed by Petitioner and Hughes, and in an unpublished opinion described the relevant facts as follows:

The evidence presented at trial demonstrated that in 2007, victim Jabari Harris regularly sold drugs in the vicinity of 45th Avenue and Bancroft Avenue in Oakland, working with three associates. One was victim Luis Coria, the second was in jail at the time of the murders, and the third was a friend of Coria. Harris attempted to monopolize the sale of drugs in the area, regularly confronting other would-be sellers who were not a part of his team. One witness described Harris as "real aggressive" and "want[ing] to fight" when he confronted others attempting to sell drugs in the neighborhood without his approval.

Defendants are longtime acquaintances and, perhaps, cousins. At some time in 2007, each began selling drugs in the area claimed by Harris. During the month prior to the killings, Harris had found Hughes attempting to sell drugs in the area "two or three times." On those occasions, Harris and Hughes "exchanged words." Although Hughes was verbally defiant, when confronted he left the area rather than challenge Harris. In the same time period, Harris had similar confrontations with Sanders.

Three witnesses told police that, on September 11, 2007, they saw Sanders argue with and then kill Harris, shooting him once in the head.[FN 3]

[FN: 3] Two of these witnesses recanted their statements to police at trial, but the statements were admitted as evidence.

Only one witness tied Hughes to the killings. S.C. was 13 years old at the time and lived with his mother and sisters in a second-floor apartment on Bancroft Avenue. S.C. regarded Harris as a big brother, seeing him every day, spending time with him, and receiving small amounts of money from him. S.C. was familiar with defendants from seeing them in the neighborhood almost every day for "months" before the killings, and Hughes's brother was dating S.C.'s mother at the time. Both defendants had visited S.C.'s home and were free to come and go from the apartment. S.C. was aware of regular "conflict or friction" between Harris and Sanders. He also watched Harris confront Hughes a few days before the killings and tell Hughes he "couldn't be out there on the block no more."

On the day of the killings, S.C. arrived home from school between 4:30 and 5:00 p.m. S.C. stopped to talk to Sanders and two other[] person[s] on the corner across the street from his apartment. As they spoke, Sanders left, "went to the side of a building," and returned with a gun. When one of the others present asked Sanders if he would sell the gun, Sanders declined, saying he "needed it." After a few minutes, S.C. went home. Between 5:30 and 6:00 p.m., S.C., watching from the balcony of the apartment, saw Harris arrive in hiscar. S.C. went outside and they walked to the store together. They returned to the apartment building between 6:30 and 7:00 p.m. Harris told S.C. to go inside because it was getting late, and S.C. complied. Soon after, Sanders walked into S.C.'s mother's apartment, "told everybody to stay in the house and don't come outside," pulled the gun from his waistband, and left.

Two minutes later, S.C. went onto the balcony of the apartment. Looking down, he saw Sanders and Harris arguing in front of the apartment. Coria was nearby. As part of his testimony, S.C. marked the location of these persons on a photograph. The photograph, taken from the vantage point of the balcony, shows a fence alongside a sidewalk, with an open gate in the fence. Harris and Sanders were standing on the sidewalk, just outside the gate. Coria was a few feet away, also on the sidewalk.

After a few minutes of argument, Harris answered his cell phone and turned away from Sanders. At that instant, from six feet away, Sanders pulled out his gun and shot Harris. Sanders immediately walked to the fallen Harris and began rummaging through his pockets. Simultaneously, S.C. noticed Hughes appear from the side of the apartment building, inside the fence. He was moving toward the open gate, in the general direction of Coria, with gun in hand. Hughes shot Coria, who had begun running away, twice in the back. After Coria fell, Hughes moved closer to him, fired more shots, and ran off.[FN 4] When Coria collapsed, he was lying in the street, only a few feet from Harris's position on the sidewalk.

[FN 4:] In discussing the evidence against him, Hughes stresses that the forensic medical examiner concluded all of Coria's gunshot wounds were inflicted from the front or side, in conflict with S.C.'s testimony. S.C.'s testimony was bolstered, however, by the police discovery of several bullet casings inside the fence, in the location from which, S.C. testified, Hughes initially opened fire. There was no testimony suggesting Sanders was in this location that night.

The jury convicted both defendants on all counts and found true all allegations, including the special circumstance allegation. They were sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.

Hughes, 2013 WL 960130, *1-3.

B. Procedural History

Petitioner and Hughes appealed the judgment to the California Court of Appeal. In an unpublished opinion, filed on March 13, 2013, the state appellate court affirmed the judgment. Id. at *19; Resp't Ex. 13. The state appellate court further ordered each defendant's terms of life imprisonment to run concurrently rather than consecutively, granted each custody credits, and affirmed the judgments of conviction in all other respects. See id. On June 12, 2013, the California Supreme Court denied Petitioner's and Hughes's petitions for review. Resp't Ex. 16.

On August 8, 2014, Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the instant matter, along with a motion to stay the petition while he exhausted his state court remedies as to some of his claims.³ Dkts. 1, 2. On August 29, 2014, the Court granted Petitioner a stay pursuant to Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005). Dkt. 5.

On August 5, 2014, Petitioner filed a state habeas petition in Alameda County Superior Court, which was denied on October 3, 2014. See Resp't Ex. 18 (second to last attachment thereto).

On October 27, 2014, Petitioner filed a state habeas petition in the California Court of Appeal, which was denied on November 5, 2014. See Resp't Exs. 17, 18 (last attachment thereto).

On November 24, 2014, Petitioner filed a state habeas petition in the California Supreme Court, which was denied on February 11, 2015. See Resp't Exs. 18, 19.

On April 10, 2015, Petitioner filed his amended federal petition, which again is the operative petition in this matter. Dkt. 10. On April 17, 2015, this Court issued an order lifting the stay and directing Respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted. Dkt. 11. Respondent has filed an Answer to the amended petition, and Petitioner has filed a Traverse. Dkts. 20, 21. The matter is fully briefed and ripe for adjudication.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A federal court may entertain a habeas petition from a state prisoner "only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act ("AEDPA") of 1996, a district court may not grant a petition challenging a state conviction or sentence on the basis of a claim that was reviewed on the merits in state court unless the state court's 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 ofthe evidence presented in the State court proceeding." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). The first prong applies both to questions of law and to mixed questions of law and fact, see Williams (Terry) v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 407-09 (2000), while the second prong applies to decisions based on factual determinations, see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 340 (2003).

A state court decision is ...