Sweat v. Attorney Gen.

Docket NumberCv. 19-987 JB/GJF
Decision Date21 December 2023
PartiesALREE B. SWEAT, III, Petitioner, v. ATTORNEY GENERAL for the STATE of NEW MEXICO, Respondent.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of New Mexico
PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION
THE HONORABLE GREGORY J. FOURATT UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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.

I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

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.

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

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:

On the morning of May 5, 2013, Las Cruces Police Department (LCPD) Officer Sean Terry was dispatched to investigate a reported auto burglary at the Super 8 Motel. He was, however rerouted by dispatch to the Mesilla Valley Hospital because the complainant had left the motel to go to work. He observed that the window of Theresa Graham's white Buick LeSabre (the LeSabre) was pried open and broken. Graham reported that additional evidence was located at the Super 8 Motel. Officer Terry proceeded to the Super 8 Motel, where he discovered a blue Toyota Sienna (the Sienna) with similar damage. Officer Terry photographed the damage to both vehicles. He also viewed surveillance video footage with the manager of the motel and requested a copy of the surveillance video footage from the relevant time period (the surveillance video).
On May 6, 2013, LCPD Detective Michael Rickards received an email message that contained still images captured from the surveillance video. Detective Rickards recognized Defendant as the person pictured. Detective Rickards then viewed the surveillance video and noted that the person pictured was driving a dark-colored pickup truck. With this information, Detective Rickards began an investigation to determine whether Defendant owned or drove such a vehicle. As Detective Rickards was driving to Defendant's last known address, he saw Defendant standing on the side of the road next to a disabled, dark-colored pickup truck. Detective Rickards obtained the registration information and determined that Defendant owned the vehicle.
Given this information, Detective Rickards implemented a surveillance operation targeting Defendant. Officers stationed themselves at Defendant's house and observed that location until approximately 1:00 a.m., at which time Defendant left his house in a white Ford Mustang (the Mustang). Defendant drove through the city, ultimately parking at the Comfort Inn. New Mexico State Police Officer Daniel Lazos was assisting with the operation and positioned himself on the north side of the Comfort Inn. He saw Defendant in the northwest part of the parking lot banging on the door frame of a car. Officer Lazos then heard glass breaking, saw Defendant move to another vehicle, and heard more glass breaking. At this time, LCPD Officer Gary Pederson drove into the parking lot and parked his vehicle in close proximity to Defendant. Officer Pederson exited his vehicle and confronted Defendant, who dropped a backpack and fled on foot. Defendant ran directly toward Officer Lazos, but a rock wall separated the two. Defendant spoke to Officer Lazos as he ran by. While running away from Officer Lazos, Defendant passed directly in front of Detective Rickards' vehicle. Detective Rickards identified Defendant and yelled out for Defendant to stop running. The officers searched the area but did not find Defendant.
Crime Scene Photographer and Technician Anthony Martin photographed damage to two vehicles at the Comfort Inn: a silver Toyota Prius (the Prius) and a grey Ford F-250 (the F-250). The Mustang remained at the Comfort Inn.
After being apprehended, Defendant participated in a custodial interview with Detective Rickards, during which they discussed the current location of property missing from the vehicles at the Super 8 Motel. Defendant denied having possession of the property and stated that “I don't remember what I got [from the Super 8 Motel] and that “Bobby did something with it[.]
At trial, the State introduced the surveillance video through the testimony of Super 8 Motel manager Dipesh Gandhi. Gandhi testified that the surveillance video showed activity in the Super 8 Motel parking lot, including the “breaking of the vehicles” at issue in the case. Defendant objected to the admission of the surveillance video, claiming that, because it was “black-and-white” and “grainy,” the prejudicial effect outweighed the probative value. The district court overruled the objection.
Numerous law enforcement officers testified about their specific involvement in the investigation or the surveillance operation targeting Defendant. During Detective Rickards' testimony, the State played the surveillance video for the jury, including segments that showed (1) a dark-colored pickup truck pulling into and parking in the Super 8 Motel parking lot; (2) a person peering into the passenger side window of a white vehicle with a flashlight; and (3) a person forcibly entering the LeSabre and the Sienna. As the jury viewed the second segment, the following exchange took place:
[The State:] I'm going to draw your attention to [the portion of the surveillance video] starting with 2:20 [a.m.] . . . . Can you tell from that angle, or did you know who this [person pictured] was?
[Detective Rickards:] Not at this particular moment, no.
[The State:] Okay. Is this part of the video that you watched?
[Detective Rickards:] Yes, it is.
[The State:] When did you start to realize who you thought it was?
[Detective Rickards:] As soon as he came from the passenger side window to this position, I knew immediately it was [Defendant].
Detective Rickards' testimony on this topic continued as follows:
[The State:] Do you know [Defendant]?
[Detective Rickards:] I do.
[The State:] Does he know you?
[Detective Rickards:] Yes, he does.
[The State:] Does he know you by name?
[Detective Rickards:] Yes, sir, he does.
[The State:] And you knew him before this incident by name?
[Detective Rickards:] Yes, I d[id].
[The State:] So the person you
...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT