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

Summary

This document is a United States District Court for the District of New Mexico Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition in Joseph B. Waters’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas proceeding. It addresses exhausted claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and double jeopardy after Petitioner voluntarily dismissed several unexhausted claims. The magistrate judge recommends denying the remaining claims with prejudice under the standards governing federal habeas review.

Holdings

1. The recommended disposition concludes that Waters failed to show that the state court's determination that his statements were made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily, and that he was not in custody during the relevant questioning, was contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law or based on an unreasonable determination of fact.
2. The recommended disposition concludes that Waters failed to rebut by clear and convincing evidence the state court's factual findings concerning counsel's plea advice and failed to establish deficient performance or prejudice under the governing plea-bargaining standard.
3. The recommended disposition concludes that Waters's conclusory allegations concerning counsel's failure to investigate defenses and witnesses or call witnesses and rebuttal experts were insufficient to establish either deficient performance or prejudice.
4. The recommended disposition concludes that Waters failed to demonstrate a Double Jeopardy violation because the conduct underlying kidnapping and criminal sexual penetration was not unitary, and the convictions rested on distinct factual bases.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the state court unreasonably applied clearly established federal law or unreasonably determined the facts in rejecting Waters's ineffective-assistance claim based on counsel's failure to seek suppression of his statements.
2. Whether the state court unreasonably rejected Waters's claim that counsel was ineffective in advising him to reject the State's plea offer.
3. Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate defenses and witnesses or call witnesses and rebuttal expert witnesses.
4. Whether multiple convictions for kidnapping and first-degree criminal sexual penetration violated the Double Jeopardy Clause.
5. Whether Waters was entitled to a certificate of appealability.

Disposition

other