Young v. Stephens, CIVIL NO. SA-13-CA-500-XR

Decision Date13 July 2015
Docket NumberCIVIL NO. SA-13-CA-500-XR
PartiesCHRISTOPHER ANTHONY YOUNG, TDCJ No. 999508, Petitioner, v. WILLIAM STEPHENS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent.
CourtU.S. District Court — Western District of Texas

CHRISTOPHER ANTHONY YOUNG, TDCJ No. 999508, Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM STEPHENS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice,
Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent.

CIVIL NO. SA-13-CA-500-XR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

July 13, 2015


ORDER

Petitioner Christopher Anthony Young filed this federal habeas corpus action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2254 challenging his 2006 Bexar County conviction for capital murder and sentence of death for the fatal shooting of Hasmukh Patel during the course of an attempted robbery. For the reasons set forth below, Petitioner is entitled to neither federal habeas corpus relief nor a Certificate of Appealability from this Court.

I. Background

A. The Offense

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals' published opinion affirming Petitioner's conviction on direct appeal summarized the pertinent evidence introduced at the guilt-innocence phase of Petitioner's capital murder trial as follows:

The evidence at trial established that on November 21, 2004, within minutes of stealing a red Mazda Protégé from its owner at gunpoint, the appellant drove the stolen vehicle to the mini-mart/dry cleaners owned by Hasmukhbhai Patel. The following events were captured on the store's surveillance camera: FN5 the

Page 2

appellant, wearing a black shirt and light-colored shorts, entered the store at 9:37 a.m. and appeared to be holding something hidden within his left pocket. The appellant looked around the front of the store before moving behind Patel, who was working in the rear of the store. The appellant asked Patel the cost of cleaning clothes at the store. The appellant's voice immediately changed to a lower tone, and the appellant stated, "Alright [sic], give up the money. I'm not playing. I'm not fucking playing." Patel came into view as he quickly moved behind the counter towards the cash register, and the appellant could be seen leaning over the front counter with his left arm completely extended, pointing a silver handgun at Patel. Again, the appellant ordered Patel to "give up the money," followed by the appellant's firing his first shot in the direction of Patel (now out of view behind the cash register). The appellant then yelled, "You be fucking up. I'm not playing. Give it up!" He fired a second shot in the direction of Patel. At this point, the alarm went off as Patel had apparently pushed the panic button on the system. The appellant, with his handgun still extended, followed the fleeing Patel to the opposite side of the front counter, and he could be heard over the alarm shouting, "I said give up the money, right." The video caught the appellant's movement behind the counter in the direction of the cash register. He was out of view for a few seconds before coming back into view and was then seen concealing his handgun under his shirt as he left the store.
FN5. The surveillance camera provided both audio and video evidence of the crime. The camera also time and date-stamped the film so it evidences the exact timing of the offense.
Two of Patel's regular customers, Raul Vasquez, Jr. and Hattie Helton, happened to be in the parking lot of the store at the time of the offense. Vasquez had just pulled into a parking space in front of the store. Before he could exit his truck, he heard gunshots and looked up to see a black male leaning over the counter firing a gun at Patel. When the gunman left the store and got into a small red car, Vasquez called the police and then chased the gunman, but with no success. Vasquez was able to tell the police that the car's license plate had a "W" and that the perpetrator was wearing a black shirt and light-colored shorts. Helton, who was parked directly in front of the door, had just exited the store moments earlier and was in her car checking her "scratch-off" lottery tickets. When she heard the store alarm go off, she looked up to see a black male exit the store and get in a small red car that was parked by the gas pumps. Once he was gone, Helton exited her car and called to Patel. When he did not answer, Helton called the police on a payphone located outside of the store. Both Vasquez and Helton identified the appellant as the perpetrator at trial.
The appellant was apprehended at approximately 11:00 a.m. when an officer spotted the red car parked at a house several miles away. The car's license plate began with a "W." The appellant was wearing a black shirt and light-colored shorts. The appellant's hands, shirt, and the steering wheel of the car all tested positive for gunshot residue. Patel's blood was found on one of the appellant's socks. Patel died from the gunshot wound to his chest. The murder weapon was never recovered.

Page 3

Young v. State, 283 S.W.3d 854, 860-61 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009), cert. denied, 558 U.S. 1093 (2009).

B. Indictment

On February 13, 2015, a Bexar County grand jury indicted Petitioner on a charge of capital murder, to wit, intentionally causing the death of Patel by shooting Patel with a deadly weapon, namely a firearm, while in the course of committing and attempting to commit the robbery of Patel.1

C. Guilt-Innocence Phase of Trial

The guilt-innocence phase of Petitioner's capital murder trial commenced on January 30, 2006. On February 1, 2006, after deliberating less than two hours, Petitioner's jury returned its verdict, finding Petitioner guilty of capital murder as charged in the indictment.2

D. Punishment Phase of Trial

1. The Prosecution's Evidence

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals' opinion summarized the testimony and other evidence presented during the punishment phase of Petitioner's trial as follows:

The evidence in the instant case revealed that, immediately after he stole a car from a woman at gunpoint, the appellant drove to Patel's store, demanded money, and then shot Patel dead when Patel did not cooperate quickly enough. The appellant

Page 4

then left the store, disposed of his weapon, and picked up a prostitute with whom he could do drugs. This evidence of such a callous crime might alone support a finding of future dangerousness. However, the State presented further evidence that, immediately prior to the instant crime, the appellant also committed aggravated sexual assault on the woman from whom he stole the red Mazda Protégé.
At approximately 8:45 a.m. on November 21, 2004, Daphne Edwards was serving breakfast to her three young girls, all under the age of eight, when she realized that she was out of cigarettes. Edwards decided to leave her efficiency apartment and quickly drove to Patel's store about one block away while the children were eating. She was gone less than five minutes. Upon returning, she parked in front of the apartment and went straight inside. Almost immediately after her return, there was a knock on her door. Thinking it was her sister, Edwards opened the door to find the appellant standing there pointing a silver revolver at her. The appellant put the gun to Edwards' head, pushed his way in and asked her, "Where's the fucking money?" The appellant walked Edwards through the apartment at gunpoint to make sure no one else was home other than the children and that there was no access to a phone. The three children were scared and crying. Edwards gave the appellant all the money that she had in her purse—$28—but he told her that she had to give him something else because that was not enough money. The appellant then told Edwards to undress. He had Edwards tell her girls to go to the other room; however, as it was an efficiency apartment the girls could still see and hear everything that happened. The appellant then told Edwards that she was not disrobing quickly enough, so he shot the gun into the floor next to her feet. Edwards disrobed, and the appellant made her sit in a chair and perform oral sex on him. The appellant then made Edwards walk to the bathroom where the children could not fully see what was happening but the appellant could see the children. The appellant then made Edwards get on her knees and perform oral sex on him again. FN25 The appellant then decided that he wanted Edwards to wear something "sexy" for him, so he took her back out of the bathroom to get her clothes. Edwards picked out an outfit but the appellant thought it was too long, so she picked out another outfit. He made her put on this outfit but did not allow her to put on any underwear. The appellant then decided that he wanted to leave. When Edwards protested that she would not leave her children, the appellant told her, "You did it before. I saw you." The appellant then walked over to the children and kissed each of them on the cheek and told them that their mommy would be back.
FN25. DNA tests confirmed the sexual assault by the appellant.
The appellant then forced Edwards, still at gunpoint, to leave the apartment and get into her red Mazda Protégé. He had her drive to the front of the apartment complex, at which point he decided that he wanted to drive. As he was getting out of the car, he told Edwards not to drive off or he would go back and kill her children. He told her to move to the passenger seat. As he was getting into the driver's seat, Edwards took the opportunity to escape—the appellant had left the passenger door

Page 5

open and Edwards saw some people in the parking lot. She ran screaming to her cousin's apartment at the front of the complex where they called the police and then went to get the children. The appellant drove off in
...

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