Villa v. Morgan
| Decision Date | 23 June 2014 |
| Docket Number | CV 13-1226 RB/WPL |
| Parties | IVAN VILLA, Petitioner, v. J. TIM MORGAN, Warden, Torrance County Detention Facility, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico |
Petitioner Iván Villa is, legally speaking, a murderer; the question is, is he the murderer Mexico is looking for? For over seven years now, Petitioner has been imprisoned in this state for, among other things, the 2005 murder of his wife in Ruidoso, New Mexico. Now the Republic of Mexico seeks to prosecute him for the aggravated homicide of a teenage girl in 2006. Though a magistrate judge in the District of New Mexico certified his extradition for the latter charge, Petitioner insists that this proceeding was flawed due to altered evidence and that another man may be responsible for the crime.
Because he cannot directly appeal his extradition certification, Petitioner now seeks a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 1.) Respondent argues that Petitioner has failed to show that he is entitled to the writ (see Response Brief, Doc. 8), a position that Petitioner strenuously opposes (see Reply Brief, Doc. 11). However, because evidence exists giving probable cause to believe that Petitioner is the person whom Mexico seeks, a writ of habeas corpus may not issue here. Accordingly, I recommend that the Court deny the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus in this action.
On the evening of September 29, 2006, a man known as Manuel Villa allegedly strangled his girlfriend, fifteen-year-old Fátima Villa Sánchez, inside his home in Santa Maria Del Oro in the State of Durango, Mexico. That afternoon, Manuel Villa had allegedly called Karina Carrete Vásquez, a friend of Fátima's, and asked her to tell Fátima that he was leaving the city. Carrete later told authorities that she conveyed this message, that Fátima and Manuel Villa then spoke by phone, and that Fátima told Carrete that she was going to visit Manuel Villa at his home. Fátima's sister had also learned from a cousin of Manuel Villa's that the latter urgently wanted to see Fátima because he was going to leave for the United States and he wanted to say goodbye. When Fátima's parents could not find her that evening, her sister told them that she was afraid Fátima had run off to Ciudad Juárez with her boyfriend. The parents visited Manuel Villa's home, where they found Fátima's car parked outside. Fátima's father eventually forced open the door of that house and entered, where he found Fátima's lifeless body.
Within several days, Durango authorities had established that Manuel Villa was also known by several aliases, including Manuel Galván Ontiveros and Iván Villa. In June 2007, an arrest warrant was issued in the State of Durango for the arrest of Manuel Villa, also known as Manuel Galván Ontiveros and Iván Villa, for aggravated homicide.1
Meanwhile, Petitioner Iván Villa entered a plea of no contest in state court in February 2007 to charges of second degree murder and kidnapping. The charges stemmed from the May 2005 murder of Petitioner's nineteen-year-old wife in Ruidoso and the kidnapping of his wife's child.2 Petitioner has been serving a twenty-four-year prison sentence since his conviction.
Pursuant to a Diplomatic Note from the Republic of Mexico, the United States filed a Complaint for Arrest for Extradition in May 2013, seeking the extradition of Petitioner for the aggravated homicide allegedly committed by the person known as Manuel Villa. See In re Extradition of Manuel Villa, No. 13-mj-1872-LFG (hereinafter "Extradition Proceedings"), Doc. 1 . According to the Complaint, Mexico provided materials to the United States that includes a lengthy description of the facts of the case and a photograph of Manuel Villa that was positively identified by two friends of the victim at initial identification proceedings. That photograph is not attached to the Complaint, and it is unclear whether or where that photograph appears in exhibits later submitted by Mexico or the United States. Petitioner was remanded to federal custody in June 2013.
On July 3, 2013, the Office of the State General Prosecutor in Durango held identification proceedings at which Carrete appeared as a witness. Carrete was shown a six-person photo array and identified Manuel Villa as the person depicted in Photo No. 2 of the array.
The following month, the State of Mexico submitted a Formal International Extradition Request of Manuel Villa, a.k.a. Manuel Galván Ontiveros, a.k.a. Manuel Villa Galván, a.k.a. Manuel Villa Ontiveros, a.k.a. Iván Villa ("the Extradition Request"),3 along with a packet of documents supporting the Extradition Request.4 Included in the document packet was Exhibit 12, consisting of both a summary of the identification proceedings conducted July 3, 2013, and a copy of the photo array said to have been used at that time. Also included was Exhibit 14, a photograph with the label "Manuel Galvan Ontiveros," an alias of Manuel Villa.
The Honorable Lorenzo F. Garcia, United States Magistrate Judge, held an extradition hearing in November 2013. See Extradition Proceedings, Doc. 22 (D.N.M. Nov. 14, 2013). At the hearing, the parties conceded that Photo No. 2 in the photo array attached to Exhibit 12 was identical to a New Mexico Corrections Department booking photo of Petitioner. (See Doc. 1 Ex. 6.)5 However, Petitioner asserted that language in the Extradition Request suggests that the photograph introduced as Exhibit 14 was used in the photo array instead of the booking photo and that the array attached to Exhibit 12 must have been altered after the July 3 identification proceedings. Petitioner also stated that Exhibit 14 did not depict him and introduced witness testimony to that effect. The United States argued in response that Carrette had identified Photo No. 2 in the photo array and that the person depicted in the photo array submitted by Mexico was undeniably Petitioner.
Following the hearing, Judge Garcia issued findings from the bench that he had authority to preside over the Extradition Proceedings, that he possessed jurisdiction over Petitioner, and that the United States and Mexico are signatories to a properly ratified treaty providing for extradition of alleged felons from one signatory to another. Judge Garcia also found that criminal proceedings had been commenced against Manuel Villa, that a probable cause determination had been held in Durango, and that Manuel Villa goes by numerous aliases, including Manuel Galván Ontiveros and Iván Villa. Further, he found that Carrete had identified Petitioner as Manuel Villa by selecting Photo No. 2 from a six-person photo array and that witness testimony had confirmed that the same photograph in the array before him depicted Petitioner.
Based on these findings and the evidence before him, Judge Garcia concluded that there was sufficient identification evidence to believe that Petitioner was the person sought by Mexico,and he granted Mexico's request for Petitioner's extradition. These findings and conclusions are reflected in an Amended Certificate of Extraditability and Order of Commitment ("Amended Certificate") filed subsequent to the hearing, wherein Judge Garcia ordered that Petitioner remain committed to federal custody pending final disposition of the matter by the Secretary of State. See Extradition Proceedings, Doc. 28 (D.N.M. Jan. 9, 2014). Petitioner initiated the instant habeas action on December 26, 2013.
The "limited" role of federal courts in extradition proceedings is described well by the District of Colorado in In re Extradition of Fuentes, which Judge Garcia quoted in full in his Amended Certificate:
It is the prerogative of the executive branch to conduct foreign affairs. Martin v. Warden, Atlanta Penitentiary, 993 F.2d 824, 828-829 (11th Cir.[ ]1993). In an extradition proceeding, the Article III branch's role is limited. Id. The Court is to determine the sufficiency of the request to extradite under the applicable treaty provisions, id.; 18 U.S.C. §§ 3184, 3186, which is accomplished through an extradition hearing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3184. If the Court decides that the elements necessary for extradition are present, it certifies the authority to extradite the fugitive, making written factual findings and conclusions of law. Shapiro v. Ferrandino, 478 F.2d 894 (2d Cir.[ ]1973). This certification is provided to the United States Department of State for disposition. The Secretary of State makes the ultimate decision as to whether to surrender the fugitive to the requesting country. See Martin[], 993 F.2d at 829 ().
In re Extradition of Fuentes, No. 13-mj-01026-KLM, 2013 WL 2153537, at *1 (D. Colo. May 16, 2013) (unpublished); see also Amended Certificate at 1-2.
There are no provisions for direct appeal of an extradition certification; once the certification has issued, the legality of one's confinement can only be challenged through a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. See Peters v. Egnor, 888 F.2d 713, 716 (10th Cir. 1989) (citing Collins v. Miller, 252 U.S. 364, 369 (1920)). And on habeas review, the Court's role isnarrower still. See id. at 716 (citing Greci v. Birknes, 527 F.2d 956, 958 (1st Cir. 1976)). The Court is confined to determining (1) whether the magistrate judge that issued the extradition order had jurisdiction; (2) whether the offense charged is within the treaty allowing for extradition; and (3) "by somewhat liberal construction, whether there was any evidence warranting finding that there was a reasonable ground to believe the accused was guilty." Smith v. United States, 82 F.3d 964, 965 (10th Cir. 1996) (citation omitted); see also Fernandez v. Phillips, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial