IN RE ALFREDO REYES
Filed 7/8/10
IN THE SUPREME
COURT OF CALIFORNIA
IN RE ALFREDO REYES VALDEZ, )
)
S107508
on Habeas
Corpus. )
__________________________________ )
On May 22, 1992,
petitioner Alfredo Valdez was sentenced to death for the April 30, 1989 murder of Ernesto Macias. On June
14, 2002, while the automatic appeal to this court was pending, Valdez
filed a petition for writ of habeas
corpus. On January 6, 2004, in the automatic appeal, we
affirmed the judgment of death in People
v. Valdez (2004) 32 Cal.4th 73.
On
November 17, 2004, we
issued an order to show cause why relief should not be granted on the ground
that trial counsel rendered
ineffective assistance of counsel. On
February 7, 2007, following the filing of a return and reply, we ordered the
Los Angeles Superior Court to appoint a referee to conduct an evidentiary hearing and make findings on
several questions. Judge Charles E.
Horan was appointed and, following an evidentiary hearing, filed his referee's
report on December 4, 2008,
answering each question and concluding that petitioner did not establish that
trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel.
Having
considered the parties' briefs and exceptions to the referee's report, for the
reasons that follow we adopt the referee's report and deny the petition for
writ of habeas corpus.
Facts
A jury convicted petitioner of first degree murder (Pen. Code,
§ 187, subd. (a))[1] and escape from custody
(§ 4532, subd. (c)) and found true the special circumstance allegation
that the murder was committed while petitioner was engaged in the commission of
a robbery (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17)) and the allegation that petitioner
personally used a firearm (§§ 12022.5, subd. (a), 1203.06, subd. (a)(1)). The
jury also found that petitioner had previously suffered three serious felony
convictions. (§ 667, subd. (a).)
Evidence Admitted at Trial[2]
Guilt Phase
The victim, Ernesto Macias, lived in Pomona in a house that he shared with
his cousin Arturo Vasquez. On the
Saturday night before the victim was murdered, Gerardo Macias, who was a
distant relative of the victim, arrived to pick up Rigoberto Perez, who had
been drinking beer with the victim, Vasquez, and petitioner. Gerardo[3] and Perez were cousins and lived
together with Gerardo's mother.
When Gerardo entered the house,
the victim, Vasquez, Perez, and petitioner were in the small living room, which
also served as the bedroom. The victim
was lying on a mattress, covered with blankets, and had a Jennings .22-caliber semiautomatic
handgun at his side. Perez was lying on
a second mattress, with Vasquez sitting next to him. Petitioner was standing near the front
door. The victim announced he wanted to
go to sleep because he was leaving early in the morning to catch a plane to Mexico to attend his sister's
wedding. He said he was taking $3,000
with him.
Gerardo, who had been drinking
beer that day, drank one or two more beers after he arrived. Approximately 10 minutes later, at Vasquez's
suggestion, Gerardo, Vasquez, and Perez drove to the nearby house of a friend,
Andreas â€
| Description | On May 22, 1992, petitioner Alfredo Valdez was sentenced to death for the April 30, 1989 murder of Ernesto Macias. On June 14, 2002, while the automatic appeal to this court was pending, Valdez filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus. On January 6, 2004, in the automatic appeal, we affirmed the judgment of death in People v. Valdez (2004) 32 Cal.4th 73. On November 17, 2004, we issued an order to show cause why relief should not be granted on the ground that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel. On February 7, 2007, following the filing of a return and reply, we ordered the Los Angeles Superior Court to appoint a referee to conduct an evidentiary hearing and make findings on several questions. Judge Charles E. Horan was appointed and, following an evidentiary hearing, filed his referee's report on December 4, 2008, answering each question and concluding that petitioner did not establish that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel. Having considered the parties' briefs and exceptions to the referee's report, for the reasons that follow we adopt the referee's report and deny the petition for writ of habeas corpus. |
| Rating |
