Jose Rodriguez v. T Ochoa et al, No. 2:2012cv00765 - Document 13 (C.D. Cal. 2012)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Jean P Rosenbluth, DENYING PETITION AND DISMISSING ACTION WITH PREJUDICE. (See document for details.) (Attachments: # 1 part 2) (rla)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
o 1 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS DOCUMENT WAS SERVED B't ,_ ,- I ¢ FIRST CLASS MAil POSTAGE PREPAID, TO'Att e6l:11lSEl ~vr .. \oV\.A(" ~S) AT THEIR RESPECTIVE MOST RECENT ADDRESS OF RECORD IN THIS ACTION ON THIS DATE. S-. ~ . ,'1.-DATED: 2 3 4 FILED - SOUTHERN. OIVISION CLERK, US DISTRICT COURl DEPUTV CLERK MAY 292012 5 6 CENTAIeTRICT OF CALIFORNIA DEPUTY BY '= 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSE RODRIGUEZ, ) Case No. CV 12-0765-JPR ) 12 Petitioner, vs. 13 14 15 T. OCHOA, Warden, ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ) DENYING PETITION AND DISMISSING ) ACTION WITH PREJUDICE ) ) Re spondent . ) --------------- ) 16 17 PROCEEDINGS 18 On January 27, 2012, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of 19 Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 20 § 21 Respondent filed an Answer with an attached Memorandum of Points 22 and Authorities. 23 reasons discussed below, the Court denies the Petition and 24 dismisses this action with prejudice. 2254. On March 21, 2012, after one extension of time, 25 Petitioner did not file a reply. For the BACKGROUND 26 On April 9, 2010, Petitioner was convicted by a jury of two 27 counts of assault with a deadly weapon (Cal. Penal Code 28 § 245 (a) (1» . (Lodged Doc. 8, Clerk's Tr. at 21-23, 117-18, 1 1 121.) For each count, the jury found true that Petitioner 2 personally inflicted great bodily injury (Cal. Penal Code 3 § 4 Clerk's Tr. at 117-18.) 5 attempted murder. 6 12022.7) and used a knife (id. § 12022(b) (1)). (Lodged Doc. 8, The jury acquitted Petitioner of (rd. at 121.) On July 15, 2010, the trial court struck the great-bodily- 7 injury enhancements and sentenced Petitioner to three years in 8 state prison. 9 arguments that correspond to the three grounds for relief alleged (rd. at 161-65.) He appealed, raising three 10 in the Petition. 11 California Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment but modified 12 Petitioner's sentence to strike the deadly-weapon enhancement and 13 stay a concurrent sentence. 14 2011, Petitioner filed a Petition for Review in the California 15 Supreme Court, which summarily denied it on November 2, 2011. 16 (Lodged Docs. 5, 6.) 17 petitions. 18 19 (Lodged Doc. 1.) On August 24, 2011, the (Lodged Doc. 4.) On September 26, Petitioner did not file any state habeas (See Pet. at 5.) PETITIONER'S CLAIMS 1. The trial court allowed the prosecution to present 20 evidence and argument regarding Petitioner's silence in 21 response to a police officer's questions, violating 22 Petitioner's due process rights, Miranda v. Arizona, 23 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966) , 24 and Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610, 96 S. Ct. 2240, 49 L. 25 Ed. 2d 91 (1976) . 26 27 28 2. (Pet. at 6.) The trial court excluded relevant testimony from a defense witness, violating Petitioner's right to due process and to present a defense. 2 (Pet. at 7.) 1 3. The trial court erred in instructing the jury on 2 Petitioner's flight from the scene of the crime. 3 at 8.) (Pet. 4 SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED AT TRIAL 5 The factual summary set forth in a state appellate court 6 opinion is entitled to a presumption of correctness pursuant to 7 28 U.S.C. 8 1031 n.1 (9th Cir. 2009). 9 the sufficiency of the evidence, the Court adopts the following 10 factual summary from the California Court of Appeal opinion as a 11 fair and accurate summary of the evidence presented at trial. 12 § 2254(e) (1). See Vasquez v. Kirkland, 572 F.3d 1029, Because Petitioner does not challenge I. The Prosecution Case 13 In approximately July or August of 2009, Jose Santos 14 Escobar [FN3] rented a bedroom in an apartment in Compton 15 that Sandra Munoz shared with [Petitioner] and her three 16 children. 17 relationship with Munoz and it continued after he moved 18 in. 19 to move to the attached garage. 20 she 21 jealous of him. At the time, Escobar had a romantic In the early part of November, Munoz asked Escobar requested that he move According to Escobar, because [Petitioner] was 22 [FN3.] 23 two prior convictions for possession of drugs 24 with the intent to sell. 25 obtaining fake identification cards and using 26 different names. 27 On the night of November 4, 2009, Escobar returned 28 Escobar acknowledged he had suffered home from work. He also admitted He went into the apartment to take a 3 1 shower. 2 As 3 4 stared at him and asked, "What's going on between you and my woman?" 5 to know, 6 [Petitioner] 7 turned, 8 pocket knife. 9 nothing in his hands. [Petitioner] and Munoz's children were inside. Escobar walked toward [Petitioner], [Petitioner] Escobar replied that if [Petitioner] wanted he had to ask Munoz. As Escobar walked by, touched him in the back and when Escobar [Petitioner] stabbed him in the sternum with a Escobar had no weapons and was carrying [Petitioner] continued to stab 10 Escobar in the chest, arms, and legs and said a number of 11 times that he was going to kill him. 12 [Peti tioner] also slashed Escobar's face. 13 ensued, Escobar did not strike [Petitioner] or threaten 14 him. 15 During the attack, As the assault Near the end of the incident, Escobar grabbed the 16 knife 17 struggle over the knife, Escobar slipped and fell to the 18 floor. 19 ran out the front 20 Escobar, bleeding profusely, told one of Munoz's children 21 to call the police. 22 and sustained cuts to his hand. During the [Petitioner] stabbed him a final time in the leg, door, got into his car, and left. Escobar said he was stabbed or cut 25 times. He had 23 a number of scars as a result of the attack, 24 exhibited to the jury. 25 days and was still suffering lingering effects from the 26 stabbing at the time of trial. 27 28 He was in the hospital for five At the time of the incident, pounds. which he Escobar weighed 125 [Petitioner] weighed more than 200 pounds. 4 1 2 On the evening of November 4, 2009, Los Angeles 3 County Deputy Sheriff Marco Miranda came in contact with 4 [Petitioner], who was seated in the backseat of a patrol 5 car. 6 driven to the station and had spoken with another deputy. 7 Deputy 8 bruising, swelling, or cuts to his face, arms, or upper 9 body. Deputy Miranda understood that Miranda observed [Petitioner] that [Petitioner] [Petitioner] had had no had dried blood on his cheek and 10 dried and wet blood on his clothes and hands. 11 Miranda did not see any injuries to [Petitioner]' shands. 12 After being advised of and waiving his [Miranda v. 13 Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 14 (1966)] 15 stabbed Escobar in self-defense. 16 attempted to ask further questions, 17 uncooperative and said that was all he was going to say. 18 The interview ended. 19 the car [Petitioner] had driven to the station, Deputy 20 Miranda located a folding knife with bloodstains on the 21 blade. rights, [Petitioner] Deputy told the deputy that he When Deputy Miranda [Petitioner] became When conducting a later search of 22 23 Deputy Miranda also spoke to Escobar. Escobar said 24 that he and [Petitioner] were arguing when [Petitioner] 25 took 26 [Petitioner] then stabbed him in the chest. 27 not describe any other inj uries . 28 both wounds. out a knife and stabbed him in the arm. Escobar did Deputy Miranda observed Although Deputy Miranda noticed only those 5 1 large 2 suffered any other injuries due to the amount of blood on 3 4 Escobar's body. 5 wounds, he could not say whether Escobar had II. The Defense Case Twelve-year-old Maite Marquina lived 6 apartment with her mother, Sandra Munoz, 7 Escobar, 8 [Petitioner] two or three times. 9 she observed Escobar with a knife. and two brothers. in the [Petitioner], She saw Escobar threaten During one such threat, He was holding it up 10 to protect Munoz because [Petitioner] was yelling at her. 11 She also heard Escobar say he wished that [Petitioner] 12 would be struck by a car or attacked by dogs. 13 acknowledged that she loved [Petitioner] and did not want 14 him to get in any trouble. Maite 15 Leonel Guizar is [Petitioner]'s neighbor. 16 lived in the same apartment building for seven years. 17 believed [Petitioner] to be a good man who never bothered 18 another neighbor. 19 the November incident, Escobar and Munoz threatened to 20 beat Guizar because Guizar told Escobar to move a truck 21 out of the driveway. 22 admitted that he told police that Munoz had threatened to 23 kill him and that the person who was with Munoz was bald. 24 Guizar conceded that Escobar is not bald. 25 he was certain it was Escobar who threatened him. 26 Maria Ruelas They had He In February 2010, three months after has Guizar called the police. been Nonetheless, [Petitioner]' s next 27 neighbor for seven years and considers him a friend. 28 opined that [Petitioner] is a peaceful man. 6 He door She She believed 1 Escobar to be an aggressive person. 2 3 November incident, Ruelas was sweeping her patio. 4 old lady. 5 outside. 6 going to kill him or get a Long Beach gang to do it for 7 him. 8 9 Two days before the For no reason, Escobar opened the door and called her a stupid Afterwards, [Petitioner] and Munoz stepped Escobar cursed [Petitioner] Sotelo Garcia [Petitioner]. is acquainted and said he was with Escobar and He had a conversation with Escobar after 10 what Garcia called the 11 stabbing. 12 spoke before the accident. 13 it was possible the encounter was after the accident. 14 Garcia approached Escobar because he appeared angry and 15 Garcia wanted to ascertain why. 16 bothered by the fact that [Petitioner] continued to live 17 in the home with Munoz. 18 appropriate that Escobar was the one who left. 19 did not return to the apartment after the stabbing.) 20 Escobar said that he wanted to kill [Petitioner]. 21 Garcia asked why, Escobar did not answer. 22 "accident, II referring to the He later changed his statement and said they Sandra Munoz Still later, he acknowledged Escobar said he was very Garcia responded that it was has had a (Escobar relationship When with 23 [Petitioner] 24 peaceful 25 entered into a romantic relationship with Escobar even 26 though 27 According 28 romance with Escobar. for seven years. person. she In approximately April continued to Munoz, She believes he is a to live [Petitioner] with was 2009, she [Petitioner]. unaware of her [Petitioner] respected Escobar as 7 1 a 2 saying often that he did not like him. 3 4 while Munoz was arguing with [Petitioner], Escobar would 5 curse. 6 bedroom in the apartment, Munoz asked him to move into 7 the garage because he was violent, rude, and aggressive. 8 On November 9, five days after the stabbing, Munoz 9 contacted the police and informed them that Escobar was renter; Escobar was aggressive with [Petitioner], On occasion, insert himself into the discussion, pull his knife, and Three months after Escobar began renting a 10 threatening her. 11 the threat occurred before the November 4 stabbing. 12 said Escobar told her that he would tell 13 her children, and the neighbors she had AIDS if she did 14 not stop seeing [Petitioner]. 15 she had the AIDS virus, but she had not told anyone other 16 than her sister about her condition. 17 had the AIDS virus because he and Munoz met at an AIDS 18 clinic. 19 Later, Munoz corrected herself and said She [Petitioner], Munoz acknowledged that Escobar knew she About two weeks before the trial, Munoz went to a 20 Laundromat with Escobar. 21 not to corne to court or she would regret it. 22 report the threat to police. 23 an aggressive and violent person. 24 While there, Escobar told her She did not She opined that Escobar was [Petitioner] said that on November 4, 2009, he was 25 living with Munoz and her three children. 26 in the garage. 27 to pick her up at the Laundromat. 28 gathering his things, Escobar stayed That evening, Munoz called and asked him· As [Petitioner] was Escobar came into the kitchen. 8 1 [Petitioner] 2 3 ordinarily Escobar did not come into the apartment during night time hours. 4 him. 5 [Petitioner] ." 6 something shiny in his hand. 7 forearm, breaking [Petitioner] 's glasses. 8 grabbed Escobar and they struggled. 9 something near his pocket and tried to open it, asked Escobar why he was inside, as Escobar cursed and threatened to kill At that point, Escobar "launched himself against [Petitioner] noticed Escobar had Escobar struck him with his [Petitioner] Escobar reached for but 10 [Petitioner] prevented him from doing so. 11 putting pressure under 12 him. 13 the arm to get Escobar off of him. 14 afraid because every day during the prior month Escobar 15 had threatened to kill him. 16 Javier to call the police. 17 Escobar began [Petitioner] 's chin and choking [Petitioner] took out his knife and cut Escobar on [Petitioner] [Petitioner] The men continued to struggle. was shouted at [Petitioner] cut 18 Escobar several times; however, he did not know how many 19 wounds 20 Escobar came 21 intentionally stab him. 22 Escobar's chest wound, saying he did not stab him there. 23 At some point, Escobar fell to the ground. 24 denied stabbing him further. 25 the police station. 26 the station. 27 28 he inflicted. [Petitioner] to have had so many wounds, no idea how as he did not [Petitioner] could not explain [Petitioner] He ran across the street to Later, he said he drove his car to During the struggle, [Petitioner] thought Escobar was going to kill him and the children. 9 [Petitioner] 1 acknowledged that he was not stabbed or cut during the 2 incident. 3 When [Petitioner] drove to the police station, he 4 was 5 6 gasping for air. 7 was having a heart attack, they took pictures of him and 8 placed 9 [Petitioner] said that no one at the station advised him in the midst of having a He was He told an officer that he had stabbed Escobar in self-defense. him heart attack. into the After he told the officers he backseat of 10 patrol car. that he had a right to remain silent. 11 a (Lodged Doc. 4 at 2-8 (footnote omitted).) 12 13 14 STANDARD OF REVIEW Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), as amended by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA"): 15 An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of 16 a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a state 17 court shall not be granted with respect to any claim that 18 was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings 19 unless the adjudication of the claim - (1) resulted in a 20 decision or 21 unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal 22 law, 23 States; or (2) resulted in a decision that was based on 24 an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of 25 the evidence presented in the State court proceeding. 26 Under AEDPA, the "clearly established Federal law" that 27 controls federal habeas review of state-court decisions consists 28 of holdings of Supreme Court cases "as of the time of the that was contrary to, involved an as determined by the Supreme Court of the United 10 1 relevant state-court decision." Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 2 3 362, 412, 120 S. Ct. 1495, 1523, 146 L. Ed. 2d 389 (2000). 4 "contrary to" and "an unreasonable application of" controlling 5 Supreme Court law, the two phrases have distinct meanings. Although a particular state-court decision may be both 6 at 391, 413. 7 8 9 Id. A state-court decision is "contrary to" clearly established federal law if it either applies a rule that contradicts governing Supreme Court law or reaches a result that differs from the result the Supreme Court reached on "materially 10 indistinguishable" facts. 11 Ct. 362, 365, 154 L. Ed. 2d 263 12 cite or even be aware of the controlling Supreme Court cases, "so 13 long as neither the reasoning nor the result of the state-court 14 decision contradicts them." Early v. Packer, 537 U.S. 3, 8, 123 S. (2002). A state court need not Id. 15 State-court decisions that are not "contrary to" Supreme 16 Court law may be set aside on federal habeas review only "if they 17 are not merely erroneous, but 'an unreasonable application' of 18 clearly established federal law, or based on 'an unreasonable 19 determination of the facts' 20 state-court decision that correctly identified the governing 21 legal rule may be rejected if it unreasonably applied the rule to 22 the facts of a particular case. 23 To obtain federal habeas relief for such an "unreasonable 24 application," however, a petitioner must show that the state 25 court's application of Supreme Court law was "objectively 26 unreasonable." 27 warranted only if the state court's ruling was "so lacking in 28 justification that there was an error well understood and (emphasis added)." Id. at 409-10. Id. at 11. A Williams, 529 U.S. at 406-08. In other words, habeas relief is 11 1 comprehended in existing law beyond any possibility for 2 3 4 5 direct appeal. 6 claims two and three on the merits and as to claim one - 7 8 9 Petitioner's Doyle-error claim - fairminded disagreement." Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 131 S. Ct. 770, 786-87, 178 L. Ed. 2d 624 (2011). Here, Petitioner raised all three grounds for relief on harmless. (Lodged Doc. 1.) The court of appeal denied found that any error was (Lodged Doc. 4 at 8-9.) Petitioner asserted the same arguments in his Petition for Review; the California Supreme 10 Court summarily denied it. 11 "looks through" the state supreme court's silent denial to the 12 last reasoned decision as the basis for the state court's 13 judgment. 14 Ct. 2590, 2595, 115 L. Ed. 2d 706 (1991) 15 Supreme Court, by its silent denial of petition for review, (Lodged Docs. 5, 6.) Thus, the Court See Ylst v. Nunnemaker, 501 U.S. 797, 803-04, 111 S. (holding that California 16 presumably did not intend to change court of appeal's analysis); 17 see also Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 18 2259, 176 L. Ed. 2d 1098 (2010) 19 discretionary review of decision on direct appeal, that decision 20 is relevant state-court decision for purposes of AEDPA's standard 21 of review). 22 claims on the merits, the Court reviews them under the 23 deferential AEDPA standard of review. 24 784. 25 ,130 S. Ct. 2250, (when state supreme court denies Because the court of appeal adjudicated Petitioner's See Richter, 131 S. Ct. at DISCUSSION 26 I. Any Doyle error was harmless 27 Petitioner argues in ground one that his due process rights 28 were violated when the trial court allowed the prosecutor to 12 1 comment on his silence in response to some of Officer Miranda's 2 3 4 questions about the stabbing. voluntarily gave a statement to police asserting that he had 5 answer any of the police's questions concerning details of what 6 had happened. 7 A. 8 Before allowing into evidence testimony regarding 9 Although Petitioner apparently stabbed Escobar in self-defense, he subsequently refused to Background Facts Petitioner's silence, the trial court heard arguments outside the 10 presence of the jury as to its admissibility. 11 Rep.'s Tr. at 908-18.) 12 admissible (id. at 913-15), and Officer Miranda then testified in 13 front of the jury as follows: 14 Q. (Lodged Doc. 7, 3 The trial court concluded that it was Now, the Defendant admitted to you that he stabbed 15 the - 16 then he said that it was in self-defense; correct? Mr. Escobar, the victim. And did he - and 17 A. Correct. 18 Q. Did you ask him further details about the self- 19 defense that he claimed? 20 A. I 21 Q. What happened? 22 A. He just became uncooperative, 23 24 attempted to ask him. and he said that's all he's gonna tell me. Q. 25 So the Defendant didn't tell you any other information about how he defended himself? 26 A. Correct. 27 Q. At that time did you ask him any further questions? 28 A. No. 13 1 Q. 2 Did the Defendant ever tell you anything about Mr. Escobar 3 [Defense Counsel]: Objection. 4 Q. [Prosecutor]: - having a knife? 5 A. No. 6 THE COURT: I'm sorry? 7 [Defense Counsel]: Objection. 8 THE COURT: You mean during this conversation, after the 9 Miranda. Miranda. Miranda rights; correct? 10 [Prosecution]: After the Miranda rights, correct. 11 THE COURT: Overruled. 12 THE WITNESS: No. 13 Q. 14 [Prosecutor]: Did the Defendant ever tell you anything about 15 [Defense Counsel]: Objection. 16 THE COURT: No. 17 May we approach? Denied. Proceed. 18 19 Q. Did the Defendant ever tell you anything about Mr. 20 Escobar striking him or using any force against 21 him? 22 A. No. 23 Q. When you were talking to the Defendant and 24 observing him in the car, did he ever complain of 25 any injuries to him, meaning the Defendant? 26 27 28 A. He did not. (Id. at 965-66.) The prosecutor also questioned Petitioner on cross14
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
