Murray v. Lozano

Background

A Monterey County jury convicted Rickey Paul Murray in 2017 of possessing a firearm and ammunition as a felon; possessing cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine for sale; possessing controlled substances while armed with a firearm; assault with a semiautomatic firearm; shooting at an inhabited dwelling; shooting at an unoccupied vehicle; and discharging a firearm with gross negligence. The trial court imposed a sentence of 15 years and 8 months. After the California courts rejected his challenges, Murray filed a federal petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, asking the federal court to invalidate his conviction.

The underlying events involved a shooting at a hotel in Salinas. Police found evidence of gunfire and later found cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, firearms-related evidence, and documents that the state courts viewed as connected to drug sales in Murray’s hotel room. Murray argued at trial that he shot in self-defense and possessed the drugs for personal use.

Claim 1: Jury instruction

Murray argued that the trial court should not have instructed the jury on “mutual combat,” a rule limiting self-defense when a person voluntarily enters a fight. The California Court of Appeal assumed, for purposes of analysis, that the evidence was insufficient to support the instruction but found no prejudicial error.

The district court held that the state court’s decision was not unreasonable under the federal standard governing review of state convictions. The instruction accurately stated state law, and the jury was told to follow only instructions that applied to the facts it found. The court concluded that the instruction did not have a substantial and harmful effect on the verdict. Habeas relief was denied on this claim.

Claim 2: Ineffective assistance of trial counsel

Murray alleged that his trial lawyer was ineffective by failing to provide documents, failing to challenge jury selection on racial-discrimination grounds, failing to seek a change of venue, failing to object to the mutual-combat instruction, failing to object to photographs and the prosecutor’s questioning, failing to investigate Murray’s history of exposure to gun violence and self-medication, and failing to give him enough information to evaluate a plea offer.

The court applied the two-part test for ineffective assistance: Murray had to show both that counsel’s performance fell below reasonable professional standards and that the alleged errors probably affected the result. The court found that Murray had not made the required showing. Among other things, the record did not establish a reasonable likelihood that a racial-discrimination jury challenge would have succeeded; the jury-selection record did not indicate purposeful racial exclusion; the photographs had evidentiary purposes; leading questions were allowed during cross-examination; Murray did not provide evidence showing that additional investigation would have changed the outcome; and his general allegations about plea advice were insufficient. The court also found no prejudice from counsel’s failure to object to the mutual-combat instruction or from the other alleged errors. The claim was denied.

Claim 3: Sentencing and double jeopardy

Murray argued that California Penal Code § 654 required the trial court to stay two of his three sentences for possessing cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine for sale. He also argued that the separate punishments violated the Double Jeopardy Clause.

The court explained that a state court’s interpretation of its own sentencing law generally cannot support federal habeas relief unless the sentence was so arbitrary and unfair that it violated due process. The state appellate court had found that the three drug-possession offenses involved separate physical acts and different possible sales objectives. The district court concluded that this determination was not so arbitrary or capricious as to violate due process. It also rejected the double-jeopardy argument, reasoning that California law authorized the separate punishments because the offenses involved separate acts and divisible objectives. The sentencing claim was denied.

Disposition

The court denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus. It also denied a certificate of appealability because reasonable jurists would not find its assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. The clerk was directed to enter judgment for J. Lozano and close the case. Murray may seek a certificate of appealability from the federal appeals court.