Alvarez v. Robertson

Background

Robert Tobias Alvarez filed a federal petition challenging his California state-court conviction under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In 2017, a Santa Clara County jury convicted him of first-degree murder and three robberies. The jury also found true a murder special-circumstance allegation and criminal street-gang allegations on the murder and one robbery count. The trial court found prior strike convictions and sentenced Alvarez to life without parole plus fifty-six years to life in prison. The California Court of Appeal affirmed, and the California Supreme Court denied review.

The federal court reviewed the state-court decisions under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. Under that standard, federal relief is available only if the state court’s decision contradicted or unreasonably applied clearly established United States Supreme Court law, or rested on an unreasonable determination of the facts.

Claims and analysis

Alvarez raised eight claims:

1. The trial court improperly excluded portions of co-defendant Christopher’s statement to police that Alvarez said supported a defense that Christopher alone killed the victim. The federal court held that the state courts reasonably concluded the statement, viewed in context, was not truly against Christopher’s penal interest and that excluding it did not warrant relief.

2. The trial court improperly limited questioning of witness S.M. about a recorded conversation with Christopher. The federal court held that the state courts reasonably found the brief statements too vague and potentially misleading because the full conversation was not available and it was unclear what conduct the statements referred to.

3. The prosecutor committed misconduct by arguing that Alvarez stabbed the victim. The federal court held that Alvarez did not show a reasonable probability that the argument made the trial fundamentally unfair. The jury found the knife-use allegation not true, and the court concluded the evidence against Alvarez was strong.

4. The evidence was insufficient to support the robbery conviction involving 7-Eleven owner Edward Ng. The federal court held that a rational jury could find the required force or fear. The evidence showed that the men were shouting and cursing, one displayed a knife and threatened the clerk, and Ng did not intervene because he feared the situation was dangerous.

5. The evidence was insufficient to support the criminal street-gang enhancements because juvenile adjudications were used as predicate offenses. The federal court held that the state court’s decision was not contrary to clearly established Supreme Court law. It explained that Ninth Circuit precedent treating nonjury juvenile adjudications differently was not clearly established federal law for this review.

6. The felony-murder special circumstance became unconstitutional after Senate Bill 1437 because it allegedly duplicated elements of felony murder for nonkiller accomplices. The federal court held that Alvarez could not properly raise the retroactive Senate Bill 1437 issue in this petition because California law provided a separate procedure in the sentencing court. The court also held that duplicating elements of the conviction offense did not make the special circumstance unconstitutional.

7. Alvarez argued that life without parole was cruel and unusual because he was 21 when he committed the crimes. The federal court held that Supreme Court decisions concerning juvenile offenders did not prohibit life without parole for an adult offender, including a 21-year-old.

8. Alvarez argued that the combined effect of the alleged errors required relief. The federal court held that he had not shown cumulative constitutional error.

Disposition

The court denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus. It also denied a certificate of appealability because it concluded that reasonable jurists would not find its assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. The court stated that Alvarez could seek a certificate from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. directed the Clerk to enter judgment for Robertson and close the case.