Sechrest v. Baker
| Decision Date | 13 September 2011 |
| Docket Number | No. 3:92–cv–0536–ECR–WGC.,3:92–cv–0536–ECR–WGC. |
| Citation | 816 F.Supp.2d 1017 |
| Parties | Ricky David SECHREST, Petitioner, v. Renee BAKER,1 et al., Respondents. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Nevada |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Michael Pescetta, Federal Public Defender, Las Vegas, NV, for Petitioner.
David K. Neidert, Nevada Attorney General, Reno, NV, for Respondents.
This action is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, by Ricky David Sechrest, a Nevada prisoner convicted of two counts of first degree murder and two counts of first degree kidnapping, and sentenced to two death sentences and two terms of life in prison without the possibility of parole. Sechrest's convictions and death sentence are the result of his kidnapping and murder of two young girls near Reno, Nevada, on May 14, 1983.
The case is before this court on remand from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, with a mandate that this court resolve certain claims concerning the constitutionality of Sechrest's convictions. See Sechrest v. Ignacio, 549 F.3d 789, 802–05 (9th Cir.2008). In addition, the court of appeals has mandated that this court is to grant habeas corpus relief to Sechrest, with respect to the death sentences imposed upon him. Id. at 807–18.
This court determines that habeas corpus relief is not warranted on the remanded claims concerning the constitutionality of Sechrest's convictions, and the court, therefore, denies those claims. The court grants Sechrest habeas corpus relief with regard to his death sentences, as directed by the court of appeals.
In its August 27, 1985 decision affirming Sechrest's convictions and sentence, the Nevada Supreme Court described, as follows, the facts of the case as revealed by the evidence:
In April of 1983, Doris Schindler hired Zella Weaver to babysit her ten-year old daughter, Maggie Schindler. In addition to caring for Maggie during weekday afternoons and evenings at the Schindler residence, Mrs. Weaver would pick Maggie up from the Meadowood Ice Arena when Maggie was through ice skating on Saturdays.
On May 14, 1983, a neighbor of the Schindlers' drove Maggie and her friend, Carly Villa, to Meadowood and dropped them off to skate. Later that afternoon Mrs. Weaver went to Meadowood to pick up Maggie and Carly but could not find them. The police were notified, and an investigation was begun.
On June 7, 1983, the bodies of Maggie and Carly were found in Logomarsino Canyon, a remote area east of Reno, by two young men who were out shooting. The bodies, which had been covered with loose dirt, were found about 50 yards apart. A pair of ice skates and skate guards with the name “Maggie S.” on them were found near one of the gravesites.
Ricky David Sechrest is Zella Weaver's grandson and lived at her home. Sechrest had been seen outside the Schindler home several times while waiting to pick up his grandmother when she finished babysitting there. The record establishes that Maggie had been at the Weaver residence before and that Sechrest knew that his grandmother routinely picked Maggie up at Meadowood Mall on Saturdays.
On June 14, 1983, Sechrest gave an inculpatory statement to Officer Bogison and Detective Eubanks of the Reno Police Department while he was being questioned at the Sparks Police Department by Sparks police on an unrelated grand larceny charge. He admitted that he had picked up Maggie and Carly from the Meadowood Mall Ice Arena. He said that he asked Maggie if she wanted to go for a ride and that she had agreed. They drove out to Logomarsino Canyon. Sechrest claimed that they were walking around the hills rock hunting when Carly fell over backward and hit her head. Sechrest said he thought the girl was dead because when he checked her pulse, she did not have one. He said Maggie began to “freak out on him” and was “between hysterical and crying.” Sechrest stated that he knew it was wrong to be up there with the girls to begin with, so when Maggie began to run he panicked, caught her and hit her over the back of the head with a rock. After hitting the girl three or four more times with the rock after she had fallen, Sechrest went to his car and got a shovel. He returned to where Carly was lying and thought she was still alive; so he hit her “once or twice” in the head with the edge of the shovel. He then buried the girls with loose dirt. In his statement Sechrest admitted that he performed an act of masturbation on Maggie's body, but, according to him, at this time the girl was already dead.
A jury convicted Sechrest of two counts of first degree murder and two counts of first degree kidnapping. At the penalty phase, the jury set the penalty at death on each murder conviction. In addition the trial judge sentenced Sechrest to life without possibility of parole on each of the two kidnapping counts.
Sechrest v. State, 101 Nev. 360, 362, 705 P.2d 626, 628 (1985).
Sechrest appealed to the Nevada Supreme Court. Exhibit 63.2 The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed on August 27, 1985. Exhibit 71; Sechrest v. State, 101 Nev. 360, 705 P.2d 626 (1985), overruled in part, Harte v. State, 116 Nev. 1054, 13 P.3d 420 (2000).
On November 13, 1985, Sechrest filed a petition for post conviction relief in the state district court. Exhibits 80, 92. The state district court conducted an evidentiary hearing on November 8, 1990. Exhibit 95. On January 14, 1991, the state district court denied the petition. Exhibit 103. Sechrest appealed, and the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed on February 20, 1992. Exhibit 113; Sechrest v. State, 108 Nev. 158, 826 P.2d 564 (1992).
Sechrest filed a pro se habeas corpus petition, initiating this federal action on August 3, 1992 (docket # 1). The court appointed counsel for Sechrest (docket # 5, # 16). On October 31, 1994, counsel filed a first amended habeas petition (docket # 47) on Sechrest's behalf.
On March 1, 1995, respondents filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that none of Sechrest's claims for habeas corpus relief were exhausted in state court (docket # 62). On September 26, 1995, the court granted the motion to dismiss, with leave for Sechrest to amend to more specifically state where and when he exhausted his state-court remedies (docket # 69).
Sechrest filed a second amended habeas petition on October 27, 1995 (docket # 70). Respondents again moved to dismiss (docket # 74), arguing that Sechrest still had not shown exhaustion of his state-court remedies with respect to any of his claims. The court entered an order (docket # 81), on July 29, 1996, finding that Sechrest's second amended habeas petition was mixed, in that it included both claims that were exhausted and claims that were not. The court dismissed Sechrest's mixed second amended petition, and judgment was entered (docket # 81, # 82).
Sechrest appealed from the dismissal of his second amended petition (docket # 84). The court of appeals ruled initially on August 27, 1998 (docket # 93), and then amended its decision on September 16, 1998 (docket # 94). The court of appeals noted that Sechrest had, after this court's dismissal of his second amended petition, returned to state court to exhaust his unexhausted claims. Sechrest filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in state court on August 29, 1996. Exhibit 1(104).3 On September 4, 1996, the state trial court dismissed the petition on procedural grounds. Exhibit 2(104)M. On November 20, 1997, the Nevada Supreme Court dismissed Sechrest's appeal from that ruling. Exhibit 3(104).
In the order of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, as amended, the court ruled that five of the claims in Sechrest's second amended petition were exhausted; the court ruled that the other claims in that petition were procedurally barred. August 27, 1998 Order (docket # 93, # 94). The court dismissed the appeal and remanded, directing this court to vacate the order dismissing the petition, permit Sechrest to delete the claims held to be procedurally barred, and proceed to address the merits of the five exhausted claims. Id.
On May 20, 1999, Sechrest filed a third amended petition for writ of habeas corpus (docket # 115), including in it only the five claims held by the court of appeals to be exhausted and not procedurally barred. Respondents answered (docket # 120), Sechrest filed a traverse (docket # 126), and respondents then filed a notice of supplemental authority (docket # 131). On June 27, 2003, the court entered an order (docket # 131) expanding the record, and on July 21, 2003, respondents filed certain exhibits as ordered (docket # 135). On April 19, 2004, this court denied all five claims in Sechrest's third amended petition, and entered judgment accordingly (docket # 136, # 137). On June 3, 2004, the court denied Sechrest's motion for reconsideration (docket # 140).
Sechrest appealed (docket # 141), and on December 5, 2008, the court of appeals reversed and remanded. Sechrest v. Ignacio, 549 F.3d 789 (9th Cir.2008), cert. denied, ––– U.S. ––––, 130 S.Ct. 243, 175 L.Ed.2d 241 (2009). The court of appeals reversed this court's rulings with respect to two of Sechrest's claims, both concerning his death sentences, and ordered that, when this court enters a final judgement, it is to grant habeas corpus relief with regard to the death sentences. Id. at 807–18. The court of appeals affirmed this court's rulings with respect to the claims asserted in petitioner's third amended habeas petition regarding his convictions. Id. at 805–07. The court of appeals revived the claims that, on the prior appeal, it had ruled procedurally barred. Id. at 802–05. Based on...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Choi v. Warren
...misconduct as it was a figure of speech as opposed to an attempt to convey a religious doctrine to the jury); Sechrest v. Baker, 816 F. Supp. 2d 1017, 1055 (D. Nev. 2011) (comments of prosecutor of "thank the Good Lord," "by God," and "out of the mouths of babes" were figures of speech and ......
-
People v. James
...conclusion about various colloquial expressions that include the word "God" or biblical imagery. For example, in Sechrest v. Baker , 816 F.Supp.2d 1017, 1055 (D. Nev. 2011), the federal habeas court found that although various expressions the prosecutor had used in closing argument—" ‘thank......
- Kortlander v. Bureau of Land Mgmt.
-
Sechrest v. Baker, 11-99015
...raised in Sechrest's second amended petition and thus, the court held, were beyond the scope of this court's remand. Sechrest v. Baker, 816 F. Supp. 2d 1017, 1048-49; 1051-53; 1061 n.6 (D. Nev. 2011). Our remand did not, however, limit the district court's consideration of Sechrest's prosec......