Sweat v. Attorney Gen.
Docket Number | Cv. 19-987 JB/GJF |
Decision Date | 21 December 2023 |
Parties | ALREE B. SWEAT, III, Petitioner, v. ATTORNEY GENERAL for the STATE of NEW MEXICO, Respondent. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico |
THIS MATTER comes before the Court[1] on Petitioner's pro se “PETITION Under 28 U.S.C. 2254 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus” (“Petition”) [ECF 1] Respondent's answer [ECF 19], and Petitioner's reply. [ECF 21]. Having carefully reviewed the briefing, the voluminous record, and being fully advised, this Court recommends the Petition be DENIED for the reasons that follow.
Petitioner is currently serving an 11-year term of imprisonment in the custody of the New Mexico Corrections Department. See State v. Alree Bernie Sweat, No. D-307-CR-201300452; ECF 19-1, Ex. L. His prison sentence stems from a trial in August 2014 at which a jury found Petitioner guilty of four counts of burglary of a vehicle in connection with automobile break-ins occurring in the parking lots of two Las Cruces hotels. ECF 19-1, Ex. H; see also ECF 19-1, Ex. A.
Petitioner timely appealed his conviction, arguing that (1) the district court erroneously admitted into evidence “grainy” video surveillance from the Super 8, and testimony from Las Cruces Police Department Detective Michael Rickards identifying Petitioner as the individual shown in the footage; (2) the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions; and (3) he was denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial. ECF 19-1, Ex. V; ECF 19-1, Ex. N.
The New Mexico Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. The court held that the surveillance footage was relevant and not unfairly prejudicial. The court further reasoned that Detective Rickards, being familiar with Petitioner from previous encounters, could identify Petitioner as the person in the video. The court also concluded that sufficient evidence supported all four convictions since, among other things, a second responding police officer, Daniel Lazos, observed Petitioner banging on a door parked in the Comfort Inn lot; heard glass break; and saw Petitioner move to a second car. Finally, the appellate court did not address Petitioner's speedy trial argument because he “did not invoke a ruling on the issue in the district court.” ECF 19-1, Ex. Y at 0224.
The New Mexico Supreme Court denied Petitioner's request for discretionary review. ECF 19-1, Exs. Z, AA. Petitioner then filed a pro se state habeas petition, subsequently supplemented with court-ordered additional factual information, see ECF 19-1, Exs. CC, FF, GG, alleging multiple instances of ineffective assistance of counsel. See generally ECF 19-1, Exs. CC, GG. He also argued that the State committed Brady violations by not disclosing a cell phone that was recovered from his car and a yellow pry bar that was discovered during a search of his home. ECF 19-1, Ex. CC at 0244, 0256. He also noted the Court of Appeals' refusal to address his speedy trial argument. Id. at 0244.
After the State filed its response, see ECF 19-1, Ex. LL, the state habeas court, which presided over Petitioner's jury trial, denied the petition “on the ground[] that [Petitioner] did not meet his burden of proof.” ECF 19-1, Ex. MM at 0729. Petitioner sought review by the New Mexico Supreme Court. The State responded by arguing, among other things, that neither the pry bar nor cell phone were exculpatory or used in the State's case. ECF 19-2, Ex. LL. The State also addressed Petitioner's ineffective assistance arguments. Id. The New Mexico Supreme Court denied Petitioner's petition for writ of certiorari. ECF 19-1, Exs. NN-SS.
Petitioner timely filed his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. ECF 1. In this Court, Petitioner repeats his Brady (Ground One), ineffective assistance (Ground Two), and speedy trial arguments (Ground Three). ECF 1 at 9, 13, 15, 31-49.
Pursuant to the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), the Court presumes the factual findings of the New Mexico Court of Appeals (NMCA) are correct. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1); Schriro v. Landrigan, 550 U.S. 465, 473-74 (2007). On direct appeal, the NMCA summarized the facts as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial