Gonzalez-Alvarez v. Eckert

Background

Jonathan Gonzalez-Alvarez was convicted in state court of second-degree murder and first-degree gang assault. He received a sentence of 23 years to life for murder, a concurrent 10-year prison term for gang assault, and five years of post-release supervision. The state appellate court affirmed the conviction, and further review was denied.

Gonzalez-Alvarez filed a federal petition for habeas relief, which is a request to set aside unconstitutional custody or a conviction. His petition claimed that appellate counsel was ineffective, that the trial court violated due process by refusing to give a first-degree manslaughter instruction, and that he was actually innocent. Magistrate Judge James L. Cott recommended denying the petition.

Objections and Analysis

Gonzalez-Alvarez objected that Judge Cott had overlooked an ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claim based on the trial court’s handling of an accomplice-liability instruction. He also argued that the state court unreasonably found harmless an error involving the trial court’s decision not to give that instruction after initially indicating that it would do so.

The court held that both objections raised arguments that were not presented in the original federal petition. The petition raised ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, but it did not separately raise ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The court explained that including state-court appellate briefing in the record did not put that separate claim before the magistrate judge. It likewise concluded that the harmless-error argument was not presented in the petition and could not be raised for the first time as an objection to the recommendation.

Because Gonzalez-Alvarez was representing himself, the court nevertheless reviewed the objection concerning harmless error to determine whether it had merit. The court explained that a constitutional error found harmless by a state court warrants federal relief only if it had a substantial and harmful effect on the jury’s verdict. The court rejected Gonzalez-Alvarez’s reliance on a Supreme Court decision involving the complete denial of closing argument, finding that his lawyer had been allowed to make a final argument and had addressed both the prosecution’s changing theory and other weaknesses in its case. The court therefore found no substantial or harmful effect on the verdict.

Disposition

The court found no clear error in Judge Cott’s report and recommendation, adopted it in full, and dismissed Gonzalez-Alvarez’s habeas petition with prejudice. It did not issue a certificate of appealability because Gonzalez-Alvarez had not made the required substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied. The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith, directed entry of judgment for Stewart Eckert, and ordered the case closed.