1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
9 Leandro Andy Martinez, No. CV-18-01564-PHX-RCC
10 Petitioner, ORDER
11 v.
12 Charles L Ryan, et al.,
13 Respondents. 14 Pending before this Court is Petitioner Leandro Martinez’s Petition for Writ of 15 Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 1). This case was referred to Magistrate 16 Judge Kimmins for a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”). On June 16, 2020 Magistrate 17 Judge Kimmins issued an R&R in which she recommended the Court deny Petitioner’s 18 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (Doc. 22). Magistrate Judge Kimmins notified the 19 parties that they had fourteen days from the date of the R&R to file objections and an 20 additional fourteen days to file a response. Id. Petitioner filed Objections to the R&R (Doc. 21 29), and Respondent filed a Response to Petitioner’s Objections (Doc. 30). For the reasons 22 stated below, the Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s R&R, denying the Petition for Writ 23 of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1), and denying Petitioner’s request for an evidentiary hearing. 24 Factual and Procedural Background 25 Neither Party disputes this case’s factual and procedural background. Since there is 26 no dispute, this Court adopts the factual and procedural background as set forth in the R&R 27 and will not reiterate it here in its entirety. However, a brief recitation of the facts is 28 necessary for clarity. 1 Petitioner’s arrest stems from a confrontation in front of a convenience store where 2 two people were sitting near their vehicle. State v. Martinez, No. 1 CA-CR 12-0310, 2014 3 WL 457668, at *1 (Ariz. Ct. App. Feb. 4, 2014). The store owner approached the vehicle 4 and the passenger, with a beer bottle in-hand, stepped out of the car to speak with the store 5 owner. Id. The passenger and store owner get into an argument that quickly escalates. Id. 6 The passenger dropped the beer bottle and opened fire on the store owner and his 7 employees. Id. Then, passenger got back into the vehicle and fled. Id. 8 The police investigated the incident and recovered the beer bottle that the passenger 9 dropped at the crime scene. Id. Almost a year after the incident, the police spoke to 10 a witness of the incident who identified Petitioner as the shooter. Id. Petitioner was 11 arrested shortly thereafter, and his case proceeded to trial. Id. On February 6, 2012, 12 a Maricopa County Superior Court jury found Petitioner guilty of second-degree 13 murder, two counts of attempted second-degree murder, and three counts of 14 aggravated assault. (Doc. 12-1 at 53-58). Petitioner appealed his conviction to the Arizona Court of Appeals where his conviction was affirmed. Now, Petitioner 15 appears before this Court requesting a Writ of Habeas Corpus alleging a Brady 16 violation and infective assistance of counsel. (Doc. 1). 17 Report and Recommendation: Standard of Review 18 “District judges have the power to refer a case to magistrate judge to hear and 19 determine pretrial matters before the court.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); LRCiv 72.1(a). While 20 magistrate judges do not have the authority to dismiss, they may prepare a R&R to aid the 21 district judge in the disposition of the case. § 636(b)(1)(B)-(C). After receiving the 22 magistrate judge’s R&R, the parties may file written objections to the magistrate judge’s 23 recommendation. § 636(b)(1)(C). The standard of review of a magistrate judge’s R&R is 24 dependent upon whether or not a party objects: where there is no objection to a magistrate’s 25 factual or legal determinations, the district court need not review the decision “under a de 26 novo or any other standard.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). However, when a 27 party objects, the district court must “determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s 28 disposition that has been properly objected to. Id. Moreover, “while the statute does not 1 require the judge to review an issue de novo if no objections are filed, it does not preclude 2 further review by the district judge, sua sponte or at the request of a party, under a de novo 3 or any other standard.” Thomas, 474 U.S. at 154. Finally, the district judge determines 4 whether to accept, reject, or modify the magistrate judge’s recommendation. Id. 5 AEDPA Standard of Review 6 Habeas review of a state court judgment is governed by the Antiterrorism and 7 Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”). 28 U.S.C. § 2254. “An application for a 8 writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State 9 court shall not be granted with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in 10 State court proceedings unless the adjudication of the claim:” (1) was contrary to federal 11 law established at the time; (2) involved an unreasonable application of law; or (3) was 12 based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented at 13 trial. § 2254 (d). Under the AEDPA, federal courts reviewing a state court’s decision must 14 apply a highly deferential standard of review to the state court’s decisions on the merits. See Lambert v. Blodgett, 393 F.3d 943, 971 (9th Cir. 2004). 15 Analysis 16 Claim #1 17 Petitioner raises two objections to the R&R. First, Petitioner alleges the State of 18 Arizona committed a Brady violation by failing to disclose exculpatory evidence. See 19 Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). Specifically, Petitioner alleges that the Surprise 20 Police Department failed to disclose the personnel file of the crime scene analyst who 21 photographed and collected evidence at the crime scene. Petitioner asserts that the analyst’s 22 personnel file contained evidence of an affair with a former police chief and evidence of 23 improper timecard submissions that Petitioner could have used for impeachment on cross- 24 examination at his criminal trial. 25 To establish a Brady violation, Petitioner must show that the prosecution suppressed 26 material evidence upon request that was favorable to the accused. Brady, 373 U.S. at 87 27 (1963). Here, Petitioner fails to establish a Brady violation because the Arizona State Court 28 of Appeals already ruled on the admissibility of the crime scene analyst’s personnel file. 1 Specifically, the Arizona Court of Appeals rejected Petitioner’s argument, holding that the 2 analyst’s personnel file was inadmissible, even for impeachment purposes. State v. 3 Martinez, No. 1 CA-CR 12-0310, 2014 WL 457668, at *2–3 (Ariz. Ct. App. Feb. 4, 2014). 4 “[A] state court's interpretation of state law, including one announced on direct appeal of 5 the challenged conviction, binds a federal court sitting in habeas corpus.” Bradshaw v. 6 Richey, 546 U.S. 74, 76 (2005). Petitioner’s asserted use for the personnel file runs contrary 7 to the inadmissibility ruling of the Arizona Court of Appeals. As a result, Petitioner’s 8 argument fails because this Court will not challenge… 9 Furthermore, Petitioner’s argument as to Claim 1 fails to indicate how evidence of 10 the analyst’s previous misconduct is in any way material to his case. Petitioner simply 11 asserts that he would have obtained the ability to “expose” the crime scene analyst. Id.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
9 Leandro Andy Martinez, No. CV-18-01564-PHX-RCC
10 Petitioner, ORDER
11 v.
12 Charles L Ryan, et al.,
13 Respondents. 14 Pending before this Court is Petitioner Leandro Martinez’s Petition for Writ of 15 Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 1). This case was referred to Magistrate 16 Judge Kimmins for a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”). On June 16, 2020 Magistrate 17 Judge Kimmins issued an R&R in which she recommended the Court deny Petitioner’s 18 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (Doc. 22). Magistrate Judge Kimmins notified the 19 parties that they had fourteen days from the date of the R&R to file objections and an 20 additional fourteen days to file a response. Id. Petitioner filed Objections to the R&R (Doc. 21 29), and Respondent filed a Response to Petitioner’s Objections (Doc. 30). For the reasons 22 stated below, the Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s R&R, denying the Petition for Writ 23 of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1), and denying Petitioner’s request for an evidentiary hearing. 24 Factual and Procedural Background 25 Neither Party disputes this case’s factual and procedural background. Since there is 26 no dispute, this Court adopts the factual and procedural background as set forth in the R&R 27 and will not reiterate it here in its entirety. However, a brief recitation of the facts is 28 necessary for clarity. 1 Petitioner’s arrest stems from a confrontation in front of a convenience store where 2 two people were sitting near their vehicle. State v. Martinez, No. 1 CA-CR 12-0310, 2014 3 WL 457668, at *1 (Ariz. Ct. App. Feb. 4, 2014). The store owner approached the vehicle 4 and the passenger, with a beer bottle in-hand, stepped out of the car to speak with the store 5 owner. Id. The passenger and store owner get into an argument that quickly escalates. Id. 6 The passenger dropped the beer bottle and opened fire on the store owner and his 7 employees. Id. Then, passenger got back into the vehicle and fled. Id. 8 The police investigated the incident and recovered the beer bottle that the passenger 9 dropped at the crime scene. Id. Almost a year after the incident, the police spoke to 10 a witness of the incident who identified Petitioner as the shooter. Id. Petitioner was 11 arrested shortly thereafter, and his case proceeded to trial. Id. On February 6, 2012, 12 a Maricopa County Superior Court jury found Petitioner guilty of second-degree 13 murder, two counts of attempted second-degree murder, and three counts of 14 aggravated assault. (Doc. 12-1 at 53-58). Petitioner appealed his conviction to the Arizona Court of Appeals where his conviction was affirmed. Now, Petitioner 15 appears before this Court requesting a Writ of Habeas Corpus alleging a Brady 16 violation and infective assistance of counsel. (Doc. 1). 17 Report and Recommendation: Standard of Review 18 “District judges have the power to refer a case to magistrate judge to hear and 19 determine pretrial matters before the court.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); LRCiv 72.1(a). While 20 magistrate judges do not have the authority to dismiss, they may prepare a R&R to aid the 21 district judge in the disposition of the case. § 636(b)(1)(B)-(C). After receiving the 22 magistrate judge’s R&R, the parties may file written objections to the magistrate judge’s 23 recommendation. § 636(b)(1)(C). The standard of review of a magistrate judge’s R&R is 24 dependent upon whether or not a party objects: where there is no objection to a magistrate’s 25 factual or legal determinations, the district court need not review the decision “under a de 26 novo or any other standard.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). However, when a 27 party objects, the district court must “determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s 28 disposition that has been properly objected to. Id. Moreover, “while the statute does not 1 require the judge to review an issue de novo if no objections are filed, it does not preclude 2 further review by the district judge, sua sponte or at the request of a party, under a de novo 3 or any other standard.” Thomas, 474 U.S. at 154. Finally, the district judge determines 4 whether to accept, reject, or modify the magistrate judge’s recommendation. Id. 5 AEDPA Standard of Review 6 Habeas review of a state court judgment is governed by the Antiterrorism and 7 Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”). 28 U.S.C. § 2254. “An application for a 8 writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State 9 court shall not be granted with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in 10 State court proceedings unless the adjudication of the claim:” (1) was contrary to federal 11 law established at the time; (2) involved an unreasonable application of law; or (3) was 12 based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented at 13 trial. § 2254 (d). Under the AEDPA, federal courts reviewing a state court’s decision must 14 apply a highly deferential standard of review to the state court’s decisions on the merits. See Lambert v. Blodgett, 393 F.3d 943, 971 (9th Cir. 2004). 15 Analysis 16 Claim #1 17 Petitioner raises two objections to the R&R. First, Petitioner alleges the State of 18 Arizona committed a Brady violation by failing to disclose exculpatory evidence. See 19 Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). Specifically, Petitioner alleges that the Surprise 20 Police Department failed to disclose the personnel file of the crime scene analyst who 21 photographed and collected evidence at the crime scene. Petitioner asserts that the analyst’s 22 personnel file contained evidence of an affair with a former police chief and evidence of 23 improper timecard submissions that Petitioner could have used for impeachment on cross- 24 examination at his criminal trial. 25 To establish a Brady violation, Petitioner must show that the prosecution suppressed 26 material evidence upon request that was favorable to the accused. Brady, 373 U.S. at 87 27 (1963). Here, Petitioner fails to establish a Brady violation because the Arizona State Court 28 of Appeals already ruled on the admissibility of the crime scene analyst’s personnel file. 1 Specifically, the Arizona Court of Appeals rejected Petitioner’s argument, holding that the 2 analyst’s personnel file was inadmissible, even for impeachment purposes. State v. 3 Martinez, No. 1 CA-CR 12-0310, 2014 WL 457668, at *2–3 (Ariz. Ct. App. Feb. 4, 2014). 4 “[A] state court's interpretation of state law, including one announced on direct appeal of 5 the challenged conviction, binds a federal court sitting in habeas corpus.” Bradshaw v. 6 Richey, 546 U.S. 74, 76 (2005). Petitioner’s asserted use for the personnel file runs contrary 7 to the inadmissibility ruling of the Arizona Court of Appeals. As a result, Petitioner’s 8 argument fails because this Court will not challenge… 9 Furthermore, Petitioner’s argument as to Claim 1 fails to indicate how evidence of 10 the analyst’s previous misconduct is in any way material to his case. Petitioner simply 11 asserts that he would have obtained the ability to “expose” the crime scene analyst. Id. 12 Under Brady, the dispositive inquiry is whether the crime scene analyst’s file was material 13 information warranting disclosure. CITE The personnel file is only material if it “could 14 reasonably be taken to put the whole case in such a different light as to undermine confidence in the verdict.” Comstock v. Humphries, 786 F.3d 701, 710 (9th Cir. 2015). 15 Additionally, there is no Brady violation because the crime scene analyst’s 16 personnel file was not material to Petitioner’s guilty verdict. At trial, the Prosecution 17 presented a witness who identified the suspect as the shooter, the shooting victims who 18 identified the beer bottle Petitioner held and dropped during the incident, and the DNA 19 recovered from the beer bottle that contained Petitioner’s DNA. Petitioner fails to present 20 any evidence to show how the crime scene analyst’s relationship with a former police chief 21 or improper timecard submissions are enough to undermine the Court’s confidence in 22 Petitioner’s guilty verdict. Assuming, arguendo, Petitioner could have introduced this 23 evidence at trial, Petitioner provides no explanation as to the weight or importance of this 24 personnel file. Consequently, this Court reaches the conclusion shared by the Maricopa 25 County Superior Court, the Arizona Court of Appeals, and Magistrate Judge Kimmins — 26 the crime scene analyst’s file was not material under Brady. This Court adopts the R&R’s 27 recommendation as to Claim 1. Petitioner has failed to establish a Brady violation. 28 1 Claim #2 2 Second, Petitioner alleges ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of the Sixth 3 Amendment because his attorney did not interview some of Petitioner’s alibi witnesses. 4 Petitioner claims that his attorney had the names of individuals that would have placed him 5 at a house party nearby during the time the shooting occurred. (Doc. 29 at 3). According to 6 Petitioner, his alibi witnesses could have provided statements that may have induced a 7 favorable plea bargain. Id. 8 Ineffective assistance claims are analyzed under the parameters set forth in 9 Strickland v. Washington. 466 U.S. 668 (1984). To establish ineffective assistance, 10 Petitioner must show that his counsel’s performance was deficient, and that deficient 11 performance prejudiced him. Id. at 687. Judicial review of attorney performance is “highly 12 deferential.” Id. at 689. “The purpose of the Sixth Amendment guarantee of counsel is to 13 ensure that a defendant has the assistance necessary to justify reliance on the outcome of 14 the proceeding. Accordingly, any deficiencies in counsel’s performance must be prejudicial to the defense in order to constitute ineffective assistance under the 15 Constitution.” Id. at 691-92. 16 Here, Petitioner’s second claim fails because there is no evidence that his counsel 17 prejudiced his case with the exclusion of the alleged alibi witnesses. This Court evaluates 18 counsel’s decision not to investigate alibi witnesses for “reasonableness in all the 19 circumstances, applying a heavy measure of deference to counsel’s judgments.” Id. at 691. 20 Counsel’s decision to exclude alibi witnesses appears reasonable given the evidence 21 presented. Petitioner was positively identified by one of the shooting victims who also gave 22 Petitioner’s name, and police recovered the beer bottle Petitioner held and dropped during 23 the incident, providing DNA evidence confirming Petitioner’s presence. An attorney’s 24 “strategic choices made after thorough investigation of law and facts relevant to plausible 25 options are virtually unchallengeable . . . .” Id. at 691. 26 Additionally, the Arizona Court of Appeals previously rejected Petitioner’s 27 ineffective assistance argument for the exclusion of alibi witnesses. The Arizona Court of 28 Appeals reasoned that: 1 Trial counsel could have concluded a jury would not accept an alibi defense absent Martinez’s testimony or some other explanation of the DNA evidence 2 placing him at the scene. And counsel readily could have decided that 3 Martinez's explanation of how his DNA came to be on the beer bottle held by the shooter was incredible, and that its lack of believability would have 4 tainted both Martinez's claimed alibi and the testimony of any witness 5 supporting that claim, and thus tainted Martinez’s defense as a whole. State v. Martinez, No. 2 CA-CR 2017-0220-PR, 2017 WL 3971347, at *2 (Ariz. Ct. App. 6 Sept. 8, 2017). There is no evidence in the record to suggest that the trial strategy of 7 Petitioner’s counsel was ineffective or unreasonable, nor is there any evidence of 8 Petitioner’s counsel’s actions tainting the trial court’s decision. Thus, Claim 2 fails. 9 Petitioner’s Request for Evidentiary Hearing 10 In his Objections to the R&R, Petitioner requests an evidentiary hearing. However, 11 Petitioner is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing. Petitioner’s request for an evidentiary 12 hearing is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e). Petitioner fails to assert a new rule of 13 constitutional law or a factual predicate that could not have been discovered previously. 14 See Id. As a result, Petitioner’s request for an evidentiary hearing fails. 15 Certificate of Appealability 16 “[W]hen a habeas corpus petitioner seeks to initiate an appeal of the dismissal of a 17 habeas corpus petition after April 24, 1996 (the effective date of AEDPA), the right to 18 appeal is governed by the certificate of appealability (“COA”) requirements now found at 19 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c).” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 478 (2000). Under §2253, “[a] 20 certificate of appealability may issue . . . only if the applicant has made a substantial 21 showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Petitioner must 22 show “that reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the 23 petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were 24 “adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Slack, 529 U.S. at 484 (internal 25 citations omitted). 26 The issue is whether Petitioner’s arguments deserve encouragement to proceed 27 further. They do not. As explained herein, the Arizona Court of Appeals expressly rejected 28 Petitioner’s argument as to Claim 1 and the use of the crime scene analyst’s personnel file || for impeachment purposes. Additionally, Petitioner’s argument as to Claim 2 is without 2|| merit because Petitioner has failed to make a showing of ineffective assistance by trial 3|| counsel. 4 Conclusion 5 After a thorough and careful review of the record, the R&R, Petitioner’s Objections, || and the State of Arizona’s Response, this Court adopts Magistrate Judge Kimmins’ R&R. 7|| (Doc. 22). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas 8 || Corpus (Doc. |) is DISMISSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Petitioner’s request for 9 || an evidentiary hearing is DENIED. The Clerk of the Court shall close this case and docket 10 || accordingly. 11 Dated this 26th day of January, 2021. 12 13 14 _ C Dp — i ST (rl - 1S Honorable Raner C. Collins 16 senior United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
-7-