Williams v. People

• Jurisdiction: California,United States,Federal
• Parties: HENRY DON WILLIAMS, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Respondent.
• Decision Date: 25 April 2024
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
• Docket Number: 2:17-cv-2627 TLN AC P

1

HENRY DON WILLIAMS, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Respondent.

No. 2:17-cv-2627 TLN AC P

United States District Court, E.D. California

April 25, 2024

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

ALLISON CLAIRE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Petitioner is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 2254.The action proceeds on the first amended petition, ECF No. 3, which challenges petitioner's 2010 conviction for first-degree murder.Respondent has answered ECF No. 29, and petitioner filed a traverse, ECF No. 35.

BACKGROUND

I.Proceedings in the Trial Court

A.Preliminary Proceedings

Petitioner was charged with murder in Solano County, and pled not guilty.No pretrial proceedings are at issue in habeas.

B.The Evidence Presented at Trial

Evidence of the following facts was presented to the jury.^[1]Petitioner bought cocaine and methamphetamine from a friend, Ryan Estes, and introduced Estes to another friend, Gene Combs, who also purchased methamphetamine from Estes.Around 3:00 p.m. on Labor Day, 2008, Combs called Estes and asked to buy $50 worth of methamphetamine.The men met at a restaurant, where Combs gave Estes $50 and Estes agreed to meet Combs with the methamphetamine in about an hour.Instead, Estes bought beer with the money and spent about two hours drinking in his garage with some friends.Petitioner eventually arrived, had a beer, and then left.

Combs called Estes around 5:00 p.m., asking about the methamphetamine.Estes told him to wait a few hours.During the course of the evening, Estes received about 15 angry phone messages from Combs, including one in which Combs threatened to burn down his mother's house.Later, there was a voicemail message saying, “Those bullets were meant for you.”Estes could not tell if the message was from Combs or not; “it could have been [petitioner] or Combs.”District Attorney InvestigatorKurtis Caldwell testified that when he interviewed Combs, he admitted leaving Estes the “bullets were meant for you” message.

The same day, petitioner and Nicole Stewart went to a barbeque in Berkeley at the home of Armail Porter.Petitioner showed Porter a box containing a semiautomatic handgun.After petitioner and Stewart left, they drove to see Estes in Fairfield.Petitioner spoke with Estes, then returned to the car where Stewart was waiting.

Petitioner and Stewart then drove to a Popeye's restaurant in Suisun.While the couple was in their car, Combs arrived and got in the backseat.Petitioner told Stewart that Combs “had to get . . . his money back from [Estes].”Combs “was upset because [Estes] had taken his money without giving him whatever he had asked . . . .”Both men were agitated, and a decision was made “that we were going up there [to Estes's house] to get the money.”With Stewart driving, the trio left for Estes's house, about six miles away on Silverado, in Fairfield.

When they arrived at Estes's house, petitioner went to the door carrying a black case while Combs remained in the backseat.Petitioner spoke with someone at the house, then returned and reported Estes was not there.Stewart made a U-turn and drove away, back down Silverado.Petitioner then told her to pull over, which she did.Petitioner got out of the car and walked behind it, while Combs stayed in the backseat.Shortly thereafter, Stewart heard three gunshots.Combs told her to start the car, and petitioner got into the passenger seat holding his shirt, saying “Go.”He told Stewart to take him to his mother's house in Fairfield, then take Combs back to his car near Popeye's, and then return to his mother's home.

While Stewart was driving Combs to his car, she asked “if [petitioner] had shot somebody.”Combs told her “[n]ot to worry about it.Just drive.”After dropping him off, Stewart returned and found petitioner at the home of Francisco Perez, who lived next door to petitioner's mother.Petitioner and Stewart left after “[n]ot very long,” and Stewart drove them to their apartment.Stewart did not ask petitioner any questions about what happened because she was scared.

Bobby Lee White, one of petitioner's neighbors, testified that petitioner arrived at his apartment around 9:00 p.m. that night and told him “‘I had to unload my clip on someone.'”Petitioner appeared to be drunk.About half an hour later, petitioner asked White if he had told anyone what he had said.

Petitioner spent the night at the apartment, and he left the next day.He did not tell Stewart where he was going, but she suspected he had gone to Las Vegas.He had previously purchased tickets to Las Vegas which were on his desk, and they were gone.

Petitioner claimed he was only helping Combs collect a debt that evening.Combs had not mentioned “anything about a dope deal” with Estes, and he did not know Combs was planning to shoot him.In fact, he did not know Combs had a gun.According to petitioner, it was Combs who exited the car on Silverado after they left Estes's house.He heard shots, and Combs got back in the car and “said . . . to drive.”Combs also gave him the gun.When they reached Perez's house, petitioner went inside, and Combs and Stewart drove away.Petitioner told Perez to “hold on to” the gun, which was wrapped in defendant's shirt.Later, he told Perez to “throw the gun in the water.”When Stewart returned, she and petitioner went back to their apartment.He then saw Bobby Lee White, a neighbor, and told him “I'm about to go bad on my mechanic . . . [b]ecause he just jumped out of my car and just unloaded a clip on somebody.”Petitioner referred to Combs as his mechanic.

The next day, petitioner received a phone call from Estes and went to Berkeley and stayed with Porter for a night.Porter later told a Fairfield police officer in a recorded statement petitioner told him “‘I fucked around and I shot the councilman.'”

The following day, petitioner took a bus to North Carolina, where he stayed for about 12 days.He returned to the San Francisco Bay Area because he heard the police had been at his mother's house.He stayed one day, and then went to Las Vegas because he“was just upset about the whole thing.”Petitioner was arrested in Las Vegas on September 20, where he was representing himself as a displaced hurricane victim from Houston named Shiferaw Kollasie.

C.Outcome

The jury found petitioner guilty of first degree murder, and also found true the allegation that he had personally and intentionally discharged a firearm in committing the offense.Cal. Penal Code §§ 187(a),12022.53(d).On August 30, 2010, hetrial court sentenced petitioner to state prison for 50 years to life.

II.Post-Conviction Proceedings

A.Direct Review

Petitioner appealed his conviction to the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, which affirmed the judgment on September 27, 2013.ECFNo. 29-12at 99-120.Petitioner then petitioned for review in the California Supreme Court, and review was denied on December 18, 2013.ECFNo. 29-15.Petitioner did not petition the United States Supreme Court for certiorari.ECF No. 3at 3.

B.State Collateral Review

On December 3, 2012, petitioner, proceeding through counsel, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District.ECFNo. 29-13.On October 16, 2013, the court of appeal issued an order to show cause returnable before the Solano County Superior Court on the issue of juror misconduct.^[2]ECF No. 3at 56-57.The trial court held an evidentiary hearing and denied the petition on January 16, 2015.ECFNo. 29-10at 129.Petitioner then filed an amended habeas petition in the Court of Appeal, addressing the evidentiary proceedings below.ECFNo. 29-16.The petition was denied on April 12, 2016.ECF No. 3at 59(order);ECFNo. 29-16at 254(docket sheet).On June 14, 2016, the claims were submitted to the California Supreme Court; that petition was denied on October 12, 2016.ECFNo. 29-17.

On April 17, 2018, during the pendency of this federal case, petitioner filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus in the California State Court.ECFNo. 29-18.The petition was denied on August 8, 2018.Id. at 2;ECF No. 11at 1.

C.Federal Petition

The initial petition in this case was received by the court on December 15, 2017.ECF No. 1.On January 17, 2018, petitioner proceeded to file an amended petition that asserted two different grounds for relief.ECF No. 3.Petitioner was advised that if he wanted to pursue the claims in both the original and amended petitions, then he would need to file an amended petition that included all of the claims and that if he did not, the case would proceed on the amended petition without considering the claim in the original petition.ECF No. 12at 2.Because petitioner did not file a second amended petition, the case proceeded on the first amended petition.ECF No. 22at 3-4.

After the operative petition was fully briefed, petitioner filed a separate pro se petition in this court challenging the same conviction.ECF No. 43.That petition was initially docketed as a new action: Williams v. Johnson (Williams II), No. 2:21-cv-2148 KJM EFB.The judge in Williams II construed the petition as a motion to amend the petition in this action, and ordered it filed in this case.Williams II,ECF No. 6.The motion to amend was denied on the recommendation of the undersigned, on grounds that all newly presented claims were barred by the statute of limitations.ECF No. 45(Findings and Recommendations);ECF No. 47(order denying motion to amend).

STANDARDS GOVERNING HABEAS RELIEF UNDER THE AEDPA

28 U.S.C. § 2254, as amended by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”),...