Valladares v. Melvin, 17 C 1000
| Decision Date | 27 August 2018 |
| Docket Number | 17 C 1000 |
| Parties | BERLY VALLADARES, Petitioner, v. MICHAEL MELVIN, Warden, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Berly Valladares, an Illinois prisoner serving a seventy-year sentence for first degree murder and aggravated battery with a firearm, petitions for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Doc. 1. After the Warden moved to dismiss the petition for failure to exhaust, Doc. 6, Valladares voluntarily dismissed the unexhausted claims, Doc. 14 at 3; Doc. 15. As for the remaining claims, Valladares first alleges that his trial attorneys were ineffective under the Sixth Amendment in three respects: (a) they did not adequately meet with and prepare him for trial; (b) they did not move to suppress statements he made to police; and (c) they did not move to exclude evidence regarding his gang membership. Doc. 1 at 26-56. Second, Valladares claims that the state trial court violated his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights by making certain statements during voir dire and by denying his motion for a nonpattern jury instruction concerning the law of accountability. Id. at 56-62. Third, Valladares claims that there was insufficient evidence to support his murder conviction. Id. at 62-63. The habeas petition is denied, and a certificate of appealability will not issue.
A federal habeas court presumes that the state court's factual findings are correct unless rebutted by clear and convincing evidence. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1); Jean-Paul v. Douma, 809 F.3d 354, 360 (7th Cir. 2015) () (internal quotation marks omitted). The Appellate Court of Illinois was the last state court to address the merits of the claims that Valladares presses on federal habeas review, and also the last to have fully set forth the pertinent facts and procedural history. People v. Valladares, 2016 WL 6140005 (Ill. App. Oct. 18, 2016); People v. Valladares, 994 N.E.2d 938 (Ill. App. 2013). The following sets forth the facts as the appellate court described them and as the trial court transcripts reflect, as well as the procedural background of the state criminal and post-conviction proceedings.
Francisco Valencia was killed and Daisy Camacho seriously injured when Narcisco Gatica—apparently upset at having been denied entry to a 2009 Halloween party—shot into the crowd at the house where the party was being held. 994 N.E.2d at 942. Valladares—who, like Gatica, was a member of the Maniac Latin Disciples ("MLD")—had given Gatica the gun. Id. at 924, 944. Valladares served as the "gun holder for the gang," meaning that his role was to provide members with weapons and ammunition upon request. Id. at 945. As Valladares testified at trial, gang members would "violate[]" or "discipline[]" him if he refused such requests. Id. at 945, 950; Doc. 18-6 at 45. Valladares testified that he did not know what Gatica would do with the gun when he handed it over. 994 N.E.2d at 946; Doc. 18-6 at 47-48.
Chicago police detective Michael Landando was assigned to investigate the shooting. 994 N.E.2d at 943. As the state appellate court recounted, Landando "concentrated [his]investigation on the members of the [MLD] gang because there were two factions of the gang in that area of [Chicago]." Ibid.; Doc. 18-5 at 141. Landando spoke with several MLD members, one of whom stated that he "saw Valladares and Gatica walking" toward the house where the party was held and "then heard gunshots a few minutes later." 994 N.E.2d at 943-44. In addition, Valladares was captured on surveillance footage from cameras at the front and back of the house. Id. at 946. And according to an FBI special agent, Valladares's and Gatica's "phones were consistently co-located in close proximity to each other and the crime scene," and the pair exchanged eight calls between 12:45 a.m. and 1:46 a.m.—a period that encompassed the shooting, which occurred minutes after 1:00 a.m. Id. at 943.
On the morning of November 3, 2009, two days after the shooting, Landando and Detective John Valkner "interview[ed] Valladares at his place of work." Id. at 944. Valladares testified that he was "cooperative" with police. Id. at 946; Doc. 18-6 at 46. Landando testified that, "prior to talking to [Valladares, he] advised [Valladares] of his Miranda warnings because at that point [the investigators] weren't sure what [Valladares's] knowledge or his involvement was in the homicide, so [they] just gave him his Miranda [warnings] as a precautionary measure." Doc. 18-5 at 146. Valladares acknowledged the Miranda warning, agreed to speak with the detectives, and drove with Landando to the local police headquarters. 994 N.E.2d at 944; Doc. 18-5 at 146. While in the car, Valladares admitted to being an MLD gang member and stated that another gang member, "Mickey," requested a weapon the night of the shooting. 994 N.E.2d at 944; Doc. 18-5 at 147. Valladares added that the detectives "would probably find [Valladares's] fingerprints on the gun." 994 N.E.2d at 944; Doc. 18-5 at 148. Landando testified: at the station. Doc. 18-5 at 148; 994 N.E.2d at 944.
Landando further testified that, upon arriving at the station, the detectives "activated the audio and videotape equipment," as required by Illinois law, 725 ILCS 5/103-2.1, when officers conduct a murder investigation. Doc. 18-5 at 148; 994 N.E.2d at 944. The detectives issued a second set of Miranda warnings to Valladares, which he indicated that he "understood," before restarting the interview. 994 N.E.2d at 944; Doc. 18-5 at 161. During the interview, Valladares "admitted that he gave the gun to Gatica," loaded with six to eight bullets. 994 N.E.2d at 944-45; Doc. 18-6 at 47-49, 71-73. Valladares testified at trial that he did not know what Gatica would do with the gun, though he assumed that Gatica was worried about a "gang dispute." 994 N.E.2d at 945-46; Doc. 18-6 at 47-48, 51-52, 72. Valladares added that his statements to the detectives "pretty much explain[ed] what happened" that night. Doc. 18-6 at 46.
The jury convicted Valladares of first degree murder on an accountability theory, see 720 ILCS 5/9-1, and aggravated battery with a firearm, see 720 ILCS 5/12-3.05. 944 N.E.2d at 942. Represented by new counsel, Valladares moved for a new trial on the ground that his trial attorneys, David Wiener and Jack Wilk, provided ineffective assistance. Specifically, Valladares contended that "trial counsel failed to meet with him, did not file a motion to suppress his statements to the police, and agreed to the prejudicial admission of gang evidence." Id. at 942. Valladares also contended that the state trial court erred in conductingvoir dire and in instructing the jury, and that the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions. Ibid.
Wiener and Wilk testified at the hearing on the new trial motion, along with Valladares and his mother. Id. at 946-48. Wiener and Wilk testified that they were "experienced" criminal attorneys, id. at 948: Wiener practiced primarily criminal law since 1969, Doc. 18-7 at 58, and Wilk practiced criminal law for twenty-one years, fourteen as a prosecutor and seven as a defense attorney, id. at 176. While admitting that he never visited Valladares in pretrial detention, Wiener explained that Wilk, his co-counsel and an attorney at his firm, did so twice—on January 21, 2010, before the prosecution's production of discovery, and again on September 20, 2010, three days before trial. 994 N.E.2d at 946, 950; Doc. 18-7 at 61-63. Wiener added that he met with Valladares "in the lockup" behind the courtroom on each court date. 994 N.E.2d at 946; Doc. 18-7 at 65, 115-116. At one such meeting, Wiener reviewed with Valladares the transcript of his recorded statement to police, though not "the videotaped recording" itself. 994 N.E.2d at 946; Doc. 18-7 at 64-65. Moreover, Wiener testified that Valladares called him collect on several occasions and that they spoke about the case during those calls. 994 N.E.2d at 946-47; Doc. 18-7 at 66; see also 994 N.E.2d at 951 ().
As to Valladares's initial statement to police—made in the car before arriving at the station—Wiener testified that he did not move to suppress it, or to quash Valladares's arrest, because "Valladares voluntarily spoke with the detectives in their car and Valladares's statements were not part of a custodial situation." 994 N.E.2d at 947; Doc. 18-7 at 80. Although Valladares testified at the hearing that "he was arrested before entering the car," the appellatecourt held that this testimony "was undermined by his trial testimony" that he had gotten in the car voluntarily. 994 N.E.2d at 953.
Wiener then explained why he believed that Valladares's videotaped statement—the one made at the station—"should be admitted at trial to corroborate the defense theory." Id. at 947. Wiener believed that the statement "would be helpful in convincing the jury" that Valladares lacked the specific intent required to prove that he had committed first degree murder on an accountability theory. Ibid.; Doc. 18-7 at 85. According to Wiener: "Mr. Valladares convinced me that merely by holding the gun and then passing it on, that h...
To continue reading
Request your trial