Joseph B. Waters v. FNU Stevenson, Warden, and Attorney General of the State of New Mexico

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico denied Joseph B. Waters’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The court considered ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims and a double-jeopardy claim arising from Waters’s New Mexico convictions for kidnapping, criminal sexual penetration, aggravated battery, and interference with communications.

Holdings

1. Waters failed to show that the state court unreasonably applied federal law or unreasonably determined the facts in rejecting his claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to seek suppression of his statements. The record supported the findings that Waters was not in custody during the initial questioning, received and waived Miranda rights before the station interview, and made knowing, intelligent, and voluntary statements.
2. Waters failed to establish ineffective assistance arising from counsel's advice concerning the rejected plea offer.
3. Waters's conclusory allegations that counsel failed to investigate defenses and witnesses or call witnesses and expert rebuttal witnesses did not establish ineffective assistance.
4. Waters failed to demonstrate that his kidnapping and first-degree criminal-sexual-penetration convictions violated the Double Jeopardy Clause because the conduct underlying the offenses was not unitary.

Questions Presented

1. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to move to suppress Waters's statements to law enforcement as obtained in violation of Miranda or as involuntary.
2. Whether trial counsel was ineffective in advising Waters to reject the State's plea offer.
3. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate defenses and witnesses and to call witnesses or rebuttal expert witnesses.
4. Whether Waters's convictions for kidnapping and first-degree criminal sexual penetration violated the Double Jeopardy Clause because the offenses were based on unitary conduct.
5. Whether Waters was entitled to a certificate of appealability.

Disposition

dismissed