Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01689/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01689-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EMILIO TORRES,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-07-1689 LKK CHS P

vs.

SHARON PROSPER,

Respondent. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

I. INTRODUCTION

Emilio Torres is a state prisoner proceeding with counsel in this petition

for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254. Torres attacks his robbery

conviction entered in the Sacramento County Superior Court, Consolidated Information

No. 00F10227. Torres pleaded no contest to the robbery count at issue here as part of

a negotiated plea agreement on multiple charges in several cases which were

consolidated for sentencing. No direct appeal was had, as it was waived as part of the

plea agreement.

A prior report and recommendation was entered on December 12, 2008. 

That report was adopted on August 3, 2009, by the Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton,

Senior Judge, except as to the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel, which was

Case 2:07-cv-01689-LKK-CHS Document 39 Filed 04/02/10 Page 1 of 49
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

remanded for further proceedings. An evidentiary hearing was held on November 16,

2009.

The remaining issue for consideration in this case is whether William

White, Esq., Torres’ appointed counsel from the time after his preliminary hearing up

until entry of his negotiated plea, rendered ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to

credit alleged claims by Torres that he was innocent of the robbery, and that five

witnesses to the events surrounding the robbery would testify favorably for him if given

the opportunity to do so.

In support of his position, Torres submitted with his original petition his

own Declaration under penalty of perjury, and those of the five witnesses.

Subsequently, he and all five witnesses testified at the November 16, 2009 evidentiary

hearing, in addition to Rosa Torres, mother of the petitioner, and William White, Esq.,

whose assistance of counsel is at issue here. Both parties requested time to file

supplemental briefs, which have now been docketed.

II. BACKGROUND

The state court proceedings which form the background of this case are

quite complex. There were multiple cases and voluminous charges. Many of the

essential facts are recorded in the transcript of the consolidated preliminary hearing

held on November 18, 2001, in Case No. 00F00392 (the robbery at issue in this

proceeding), and Case No. 00F10227 (fraud and other unrelated charges). Torres

contests evidence given at this preliminary hearing as will become apparent, but that

proceeding informs the complicated background of this case.

Ultimately the multiple charges involved in the November 18, 2001

preliminary hearing were consolidated for purposes of the negotiated plea agreement,

Case 2:07-cv-01689-LKK-CHS Document 39 Filed 04/02/10 Page 2 of 49
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

3

together with a separate and distinct jury conviction of second degree burglary and

possession of stolen property and burglary tools involved in the burglary of a company,

Beazer Homes, on February 19, 2002. It was after this jury conviction for second

degree burglary and possession of stolen property and burglary tools that the seven

count Amended Consolidated Information No. 00F10227 was filed.

 The robbery conviction under attack in this case was charged in Count One

of the amended consolidated Information, although it was the last offense to occur,

chronologically.

Count One alleged that on December 21, 2000, Emilio Torres committed

second degree robbery by taking personal property from person, possession, and

immediate presence of Jonathan Tisdale, Christie Nixon, Randy Blackburn, and Lisa

Richards. It was further alleged that Torres committed these crimes, serious felonies,

while out on bail after conviction on a primary offense (the jury convictions regarding

burglary of Beazer Homes).

It is this crime (second degree robbery) to which the testimony at the

November 18, 2001 evidentiary hearing primarily pertained, but the relationship of the

other convictions and the parties involved in them is apparent. The events leading to

the robbery charge began with a San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Department investigation

concerning fraudulent applications for credit cards in the names of multiple individuals

who had not submitted them. All of the applications used the address of Jonathan

Tisdale, one of the eventual victims/witnesses to the robbery count. The execution of a

search warrant at Tisdale’s residence on November 14, 2000 produced mail from credit

card companies addressed to various people. Tisdale, who was present during the

search, explained that he had given Emilio Torres permission to use his address, in

return for the purchase of marijuana by Tisdale from Torres, at a reduced price.

Tisdale identified a separate address as the home of Emilio Torres, and a

Case 2:07-cv-01689-LKK-CHS Document 39 Filed 04/02/10 Page 3 of 49
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

4

separate search warrant was executed at that home the same day. That second

search produced a quantity of methamphetamine, which formed the basis for Count

Two of the Amended Information. Count Three was the result of the presence of a

9mm assault rifle at Torres’ home. Count Four charged possession of a stolen vehicle

which was found in the garage of Torres’ residence. Count Five was based on access

to a computer system without permission, resulting in the possession and compromise

of the personal information of some 5,000 employees of the California Department of

Justice. Count Six charged the unlawful acquisition and use of personal information of

eleven private individuals for unlawful purpose, resulting essentially from the mail

recovered from Tisdale’s home. Count Seven charged possession for purpose of sale

of methamphetamine which had been found in Torres’ home.

Absent a plea agreement, Torres faced exposure to a sentence of thirty

four years and four months, based solely upon the seven counts of the amended

consolidated Information. Ultimately, he pleaded nolo contendere in exchange for a

sentence on these seven counts and the three count jury verdict case, for a total

maximum sentence of fifteen years imprisonment. The multiple other cases and counts

were dismissed. The plea agreement included a single strike rather than the multiple

strikes Torres otherwise faced. 

Torres’ position on the sole issue remaining in this case is that his

appointed lawyer, William White, Esq., did not interview the alleged victims of the

robbery because he unreasonably credited the testimony of law enforcement officers

who testified at the preliminary hearing regarding their investigation and the statements

given by the victims/witnesses. Torres claims that counsel ignored his insistence that

he was innocent of the robbery count and that the witnesses would have supported his

claim of innocence, if counsel had contacted them.

Case 2:07-cv-01689-LKK-CHS Document 39 Filed 04/02/10 Page 4 of 49
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

5

III. TESTIMONY AT THE DECEMBER 18, 2001

STATE COURT PRELIMINARY HEARING

This summary of evidence at the lengthy preliminary hearing is limited to

the offense under attack in this proceeding. Some evidence regarding other matters

relates to the reasonableness of the plea bargain at issue, and is therefore included.

JOSEPH ARILA’S TESTIMONY:

Joseph Avila testified that he is an identification technician in the evidence

lab of the Sacramento Police Department. At the time of the evidentiary hearing he had

been an identification technician for about 23 years. 

Avila testified that he was provided with a four page document which

appeared to be a photocopy of a Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department report. 

Examination of the report revealed two visible fingerprint impressions and a total of 34

latent print areas. There were also two areas of possible blood on the document he

examined, on the front and back pages. 

Avila identified People’s Exhibit 16 as a photograph containing latent

number eight and a portion of latent number one.

On cross examination, Avila explained that his role was strictly the

identification of latent prints. He did no comparison. He photographed 34 different

areas of latent prints. He had received a copy of another technician’s report which had

identified latent number eight as belonging to a particular person.

BRIAN MALLORY’S TESTIMONY:

Brian Mallory testified that he is an identification technician with the

Sacramento Police Department. He was previously employed by the Federal Bureau of

Investigation as a fingerprint examiner for approximately three years.

Case 2:07-cv-01689-LKK-CHS Document 39 Filed 04/02/10 Page 5 of 49
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

6

Mallory was shown a photograph of latent number eight, found by

identification technician Avila. He testified that he compared it to the original inked

fingerprint card of Emilio Torres, and found it to contain fingerprint impressions of

Torres’ right index and right middle fingerprints.

Mallory testified that he is one hundred percent positive of his results. He

explained that it is policy to identify only one latent print for purpose of a preliminary

hearing, and that he had contacted the Deputy District Attorney to ask if more were

necessary in this case.

On cross examination, Mallory testified that the identification process he

uses is to match the ridge characteristics between the inked print and the latent print.

Mallory testified about the process of identification of a latent print and

then stated that he found twelve matching ridge characteristics on the right index finger

impression and fourteen matching ridge characteristics on the right middle finger

impression. 

A fully rolled inked fingerprint can contain anywhere from 75 to 150 ridge

characteristics. Avila further testified that he has no minimum standard of matching

ridge characteristics in order to give an assessment, however the minimum number that

he has ever used for a one hundred percent identification is eight.

ALBERT McPHERSON’S TESTIMONY:

Albert McPherson testified that he is an assistant range master for the

Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department. He was asked by Detective Souza to

examine a firearm. He described the firearm as a nine millimeter carbon manufactured

by Feather Industries, equipped with a collapsible stock, two pistol grips, barrel shroud

and a high capacity magazine. It is semi automatic.

The Court inquired whether this is an assault weapon, to which

Case 2:07-cv-01689-LKK-CHS Document 39 Filed 04/02/10 Page 6 of 49
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

7

McPherson responded that it is not in the specific list of assault weapons, “but it fits the

assault weapon category under the newest laws.”

Asked on cross examination why, if the weapon meets the criteria of an

assault weapon in the Penal Code, it is not listed as such, McPherson testified to his

understanding that the listing is no longer updated because the proliferation of brands,

makes, and models of guns has become too extensive to keep up with. “So they made

criteria. If a weapon is equipped with certain items, it puts it into a category of assault

weapon.”

McPherson did not attempt to identify the owner of the rifle, but did have

the “property warehouse check the numbers and it didn’t come back as stolen.”

PETER KEVIN CONRAD’S TESTIMONY:

Peter Kevin Conrad testified that he is a Sergeant assigned to the high

crimes task force of the Sacramento Sheriff’s Department. He assisted in the service of

a search warrant at 77 Audia Circle in Sacramento County on November 14, 2000.

Conrad testified as to the identification of an Ohaus brand triple beam

scale found on a table in the master bedroom closet of the residence and a Macy’s

charge card in the name of Emilio Torres, found in the same closet. There was

marijuana on the floor of the closet. 

Conrad also testified to the presence of a Meed (sic) brand memo pad

found on the upper shelf of the south closet wall, which contained “a name list and

numbers.” 

Conrad went on to testify about other quantities of marijuana, a calculator,

and photographs of Emilio Torres and a small child. In addition, there was a package

of “large plastic bindles” which he also described as “baggies or coin type bags.”

Methamphetamine was found on the Ohaus scale and on a plastic CD

Case 2:07-cv-01689-LKK-CHS Document 39 Filed 04/02/10 Page 7 of 49
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

8

case on the table in the closet. Other separate quantities of methamphetamine were

found in the master bedroom at 77 Audia Circle. The parties stipulated as to the

identification of all suspected quantities of methamphetamine found in the residence,

for purposes of the preliminary hearing only. 

On January 16, 2001, a second search warrant was executed at the same

location, during which Conrad found a cell phone in the same room where the other

items had been found. 

On cross examination, Conrad testified that he was at the Audia Circle

address for two separate searches, one on November 14, 2001 and another on

January 16, 2001. Initially he had no search warrant for the November 14, 2001

search. On that day, Conrad first executed a search, with a warrant, at an address on

Hollyhurst Way (Tisdale’s home). He explained that the course of that investigation led

to the Audia Circle address, for which a warrant was subsequently obtained.

OFFICER VINCENT FRANCOIS’ TESTIMONY:

Interview of Jonathan Tisdale:

Officer Vincent Francois of the Sacramento Police Department testified at

the preliminary hearing that on December 23, 2000, he went to 6028 Hollyhurst Way in

response to a call regarding a robbery. He spoke with Jonathan Tisdale, who reported

that he had been robbed at his residence (6028 Hollyhurst Way) two days prior, on

December 21, 2000, at about 9:00 p.m. He responded to a knock on his door, and

upon asking who was there, was told it was “Mill” (sic), whom he recognized as his

friend, Emilio Torres, elsewhere identified and referred to herein as “Mil.”

Tisdale opened the door, and Torres and five or six other persons entered

the home. Tisdale told Officer Francois that Mil pushed him into the kitchen, threw

some papers on the counter and told Tisdale to “fix this.” The papers were a copy of a

Case 2:07-cv-01689-LKK-CHS Document 39 Filed 04/02/10 Page 8 of 49
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

9

Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department report. 

Thereafter, Tisdale heard Mil tell his friends to “take it all.” Yoyo

(subsequently identified as Jose Pulido) smashed Tisdale’s head against a kitchen

counter several times. Tisdale was then placed in a headlock, and taken to the living

room, where his head was slammed against the hardwood floor. He heard Emilio say

“Don’t call the cops or we will kill you.” Torres also told Tisdale that he would not get his

things back until he “fixed the report.”

Francois testified that at the time of the December 23 interview, Tisdale

had bruises and a swollen upper lip, where he had approximately seven stitches.

Tisdale told Officer Francois that he believed the robbery was related to

the information he had provided to detectives regarding the Sheriff’s report.

On cross examination, Francois stated that Tisdale explained his delay in

reporting the robbery by stating that he wasn’t sure what he wanted to do. He was

scared, and wanted to talk it over with his girlfriend, to make certain that he was not

putting her in danger.

Francois also acknowledged that Tisdale did not say that Torres had

personally struck him during the robbery. Francois testified that Tisdale was not afraid

of Emilio Torres one on one, but was afraid of him “when he comes around with all of

his friends.”

OFFICER ROBERT FUENZALIDA’S TESTIMONY:

Interview of Christy Nixon:

Robert Fuenzalida, Patrol Officer with the Sacramento Police Department,

also responded to the call on December 23 regarding the December 21 robbery, and

interviewed Christy Nixon. He testified that Nixon told him that on December 21, 2000,

she was walking downstairs and saw approximately ten people walk into the house

Case 2:07-cv-01689-LKK-CHS Document 39 Filed 04/02/10 Page 9 of 49
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

10

where she was staying. When they entered, she tried to go upstairs, but Mil “grabbed

her,” and sat her on the couch. He then sent one of the other men who had walked in

with him to see if anyone else was upstairs. 

Nixon said that a big Hispanic male, about six foot three, 300 pounds,

stood in front of Jon (Tisdale) and told them not to move. She then heard Mil ask Jon to

explain why he was talking to the police. Thereafter she saw people taking items out of

the house, including a TV and Christmas gifts. She saw the “big guy” punch Jon and

bang his head against the counter and refrigerator. 

Fuenzalida testified that Nixon told him that she did not know anyone but

Emilio, for whom she gave a physical description. She said that she had seen him

previously at the house, talking to Jon.

On cross examination, Fuenzalida was given an opportunity to look at the

report and clarified his testimony to indicate that it was the large Mexican male who hit

Tisdale, rather than Emilio.

Fuenzalida further acknowledged that Nixon said that once the beating

started she “just looked down” and did not look around any further, because she was

scared.

DETECTIVE DAVID SOUZA’S TESTIMONY:

Interview of Jonathan Tisdale:

Detective David Souza of the San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Office, who

testified at length concerning Torres’ other offenses, also testified that when he became

aware of the Tisdale robbery he began an investigation into that incident.

Souza testified that he interviewed Jonathan Tisdale, who told him that on

the night of the robbery, he answered his door and Emilio Torres forced his way in. He

was taken to the kitchen, and numerous other people entered the home. Torres

Case 2:07-cv-01689-LKK-CHS Document 39 Filed 04/02/10 Page 10 of 49
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

11

wanted to know why Tisdale had given information to the police about Torres. Tisdale

reported that he had been beaten, but was not sure whether by one or more persons. 

He identified Yoyo (whom Souza identified as Jose Pulido) as having beaten him. At

the time of the interview, Tisdale had a cut lip, and Souza could see stitches there.

Tisdale said he sustained the injuries while talking with Torres, and that Torres left a

copy of the sheriff’s department report in the house. Torres also directed his

companions to take personal property from the home, which they did.

On a later occasion Souza displayed a photographic lineup to Jonathan

Tisdale, who identified a photograph of Emilio Torres as his assailant. Tisdale was also

shown a photographic lineup from which he identified a photograph of Jose Pulido as

Yoyo.

Interview of Christy Nixon:

Detective Souza also testified regarding his interview with Christy Nixon. 

Nixon said that she was walking down the stairs at the time the robbery began. She

heard voices, but could not identify them. Jonathan Tisdale later told her that Emilio

Torres “had been one of the suspects at the residence during the robbery.” During the

robbery, she sat on a couch in the living room with Randy Blackburn and Lisa Richards,

who also lived at the residence. Souza showed Nixon a photographic lineup, but she

could not identify anyone.

On cross examination, Souza said that Nixon refused to speak with him,

and that he only got her to talk to him by going to her place of employment. He said

that she was not cooperative and was afraid of Emilio because of what had happened. 

Upon further questioning, Souza acknowledged that Nixon had not said she was afraid

of Torres, but that he had “ascertained that.” Nixon told Souza that no one threatened

her or threatened to take her car.

Case 2:07-cv-01689-LKK-CHS Document 39 Filed 04/02/10 Page 11 of 49
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

12

Interview of Randy Blackburn:

Souza also interviewed Randy Blackburn, another of Jonathan Tisdale’s

tenants. Souza explained that the home is a two story residence owned by Jonathan

Tisdale, who rented space to Christy Nixon, Randy Blackburn, and Lisa Richards, who

was Blackburn’s girlfriend. 

Souza testified that Blackburn was told to sit down during the robbery. He

did so, and could hear some of the events, but was unable to identify any of the

assailants. He did describe items which were taken from various residents of the home. 

These included a Nextel I600 cell phone which belonged to him. Souza testified that

when a search warrant was executed at Emilio Torres’ home, the missing cell phone

was recovered from Torres’ bedroom.

Interview of Lisa Richards:

Souza interviewed Lisa Richards, who said that during the robbery, she

and Blackburn were in the same room. Richards heard Nixon calling for Blackburn,

who stood up, but was told by three men to sit down. Numerous persons then entered

the home. Nixon could not identify any of the intruders. Sitting on the couch, though,

she saw a young male with a bigger man standing beside him demanding “Jon, how

could you do this.” Richards further said that the younger man “also got into Christy

Nixon’s face,” and yelled at her, asserting that she had “told them I’m a crack dealer.” 

The man also threatened to take Christy Nixon’s car. Moreover, he told Richards and

Blackburn that he knew who they were and knew that they had not said anything to the

police.

Richards further reported that the large male grabbed Jon Tisdale from

behind, and began to beat his head into the kitchen counter, causing him to bleed

considerably. Richards took Tisdale to a medical center for treatment, where he

received stitches. 

Case 2:07-cv-01689-LKK-CHS Document 39 Filed 04/02/10 Page 12 of 49
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

13

Richards was unable to identify anyone from a photographic lineup. She

said that Jon Tisdale told her that Mil was the one who had “done this,” and that Jon’s

brother, Matthew Tisdale, said that all of the men were family members. 

 On cross examination, Souza acknowledged that only Jonathan Tisdale

was able to identify Emilio Torres from a photographic lineup.

Interview of Matthew Tisdale: 

Souza was asked about Matthew Tisdale, Jonathan’s brother. He testified

that Matthew was in the garage during the robbery, and that although he did not see

Emilio Torres, he heard his voice.

Souza acknowledged on cross that Torres was not at the Audia Circle

address during execution of the search warrant that produced the telephone, but

pointed out that a file containing the previous criminal case had been found, missing the

four pages that “he (Emilio) said he had taken to Jonathan Tisdale’s house.” 

Souza also acknowledged that Pulido (Yoyo) had pleaded guilty to beating

Jonathan Tisdale. 

On re-direct examination, Detective Souza testified that during the search

at Audia Circle, Jose Gutierrez was present, and said that he was paying monthly rent

to live there. Yoyo and Adrien Madrono were also there.

Asked on redirect if it were possible that someone else took the four

pages to Tisdale’s house, Souza responded “yes but Emilio has already told me that he

did.”

IV. TESTIMONY AT THE NOVEMBER 16, 2009

FEDERAL EVIDENTIARY HEARING

CHRISTY NIXON’S TESTIMONY:

At the federal evidentiary hearing on November 16, 2009, Christy Nixon

Case 2:07-cv-01689-LKK-CHS Document 39 Filed 04/02/10 Page 13 of 49
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

14

was the first witness called on behalf of Emilio Torres. She testified that on the night of

the robbery she did not reside at Tisdale’s residence, but was there at that time, sitting

on the couch. Jon answered the knock at the door, and some men pushed him into the

house, had words with him, and took things.

Nixon testified that she was never contacted by the police or interviewed. 

She was never asked if Emilio was present, and does not know him. She was never

contacted by petitioner’s appointed attorney, William White, or by anyone else on his

behalf, and was not subpoenaed for trial.

Asked if she was later interviewed by others and asked to put her

recollection down in writing, she said no. Shown a copy of her sworn Declaration and

asked to identify it, she did so, but noted that this occurred years later. Asked to tell the

story in her own words, she said that Jon let his assailant in, and was taken to the

kitchen, where his head was hit on the counter. From there, they took him to the living

room. She could hear some words but could not see. Things were taken, and they left. 

She could only hear what happened.

On cross examination, she acknowledged that she still knows Jon Tisdale,

who is now her ex husband. At the time of the robbery, they were friends.

Nixon also testified on cross examination that she was not walking down

the stairs at the time of the robbery, but rather, was on the couch watching television. 

She saw multiple men enter the house, but no one touched her. She does not

remember size or description of the men. She thinks Jon hit his head on the counter. 

She was scared and probably looked down. She does not remember someone saying

“don’t call the cops,” and does not believe that the police came that night. She does not

remember speaking with police Officer Fuenzalida, or giving any physical description of

the assailants. She does not know who Jon’s friends were at that time.

Nixon acknowledged that on November 14, 2000, weeks before the

Case 2:07-cv-01689-LKK-CHS Document 39 Filed 04/02/10 Page 14 of 49
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

15

robbery, police officers came to the house regarding mail. Asked if she told them Mil

was involved in selling drugs, she responded that she does no know anyone by that

name. She did not tell police that she was with Jon when he delivered mail to Emilio

Torres.

Nixon testified that she only remembers speaking with police officers

before the robbery, not after. She does not remember Detective Souza or recall telling

him that she saw Emilio or that Jon told her Emilio was there. 

Nixon testified that she does not remember who came to talk to her about

the case. She did not know who Emilio Torres was, so she did not say she was afraid

of him. 

Nixon further testified that she was never shown either a live or a

photographic lineup. 

The Declaration given some years later was written in her own words

when she was contacted by a man. Jon said that they needed to meet at a restaurant

and give their statements. She does not remember what the purpose was. They typed

it and brought it to her to sign, and she reviewed and signed it.

LISA RICHARDS’ TESTIMONY:

Lisa Richards testified that she recalls the night of the robbery. She was in

the living room, watching television. There was a knock at the door, and some four to

six men entered the house, some from the front door, and some from the back. They

told the people watching television to stay where they were and proceeded to rummage

through the house. One of the men hit Jon; then they took some things and left, after 

about ten minutes.

Richards testified that she has never met and does not know Emilio

Torres. 

Case 2:07-cv-01689-LKK-CHS Document 39 Filed 04/02/10 Page 15 of 49
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

16

Richards was contacted in 2005 regarding a Declaration of the events. 

She kept her copy,reviewed it before the evidentiary hearing, and testified that the

statement is true. Upon being asked to do so, Richards read paragraph five of the

Declaration and affirmed its truth. 

Richards recalls being interviewed, but not by uniformed police. She does

not recall being interviewed by counsel for Torres, and stated that paragraph seven of

the Declaration is true. She was not subpoenaed to testify prior to the federal evidentiary

hearing.

On cross examination, Richards acknowledged that on the night of the

robbery, she was living at the Tisdale home, with her boyfriend, Randy Blackburn,

Jonathan and Matthew Tisdale, and Christy Nixon. She, Randy, and her son were

playing Play Station in the same room.

Richards recalls Christy calling for Randy when the door opened. Randy

stood up, but was told to sit down by three men, and did so, as numerous people

entered the house.

Richards testified that she does not recall a young man handing Jonathan

some paperwork, but she does recall a big male standing next to Jonathan. 

Richards also remembers seeing a young man “get in Christy’s face and

 yell at her...you told them I’m a crack dealer?” Asked if that male threatened to take

Christy’s car, Richards responded that they did say something about the car.

When the men first came through the door, the young male spoke to Lisa

and Randy, stating their names and saying that they had not said anything to the police,

and that “this has nothing to do with us.”

The police had been to the Tisdale house about a month before the

robbery and had spoken with Richards about mail Jonathan Tisdale was receiving, but

that they knew nothing about that.

Case 2:07-cv-01689-LKK-CHS Document 39 Filed 04/02/10 Page 16 of 49
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

17

Richards testified that she did recall a large man grabbing Jonathan from

behind and beating his head into the counter top. Her son began to scream and there

was a large amount of blood on the kitchen floor. Jonathan was then taken to the

opposite side of the house, out of her line of sight.

Richards testified that she does not recall Jonathan saying who “did it,” or

that all “the suspects” were family members. 

That night, Richards, her child, and Randy left the home and never

returned. She acknowledged that she was fearful.

Richards testified that the only time she ever spoke to anyone regarding

the events was at the time she gave her Declaration. She is not certain that she never

spoke to a police officer, but she does not remember anyone in uniform. The statement

was written in her own words. She did not know that Mil was Emilio. When shown

photographs she did not know what he looked like.

 

JON RANDALL BLACKBURN’S TESTIMONY:

Randy Blackburn testified that he was present during the robbery, and

was watching television, when a “bunch” of people came in through the front door. He

said the event was “pretty much over before – you know, it stopped and it started.”

Blackburn recalls “the cop, Dave Souza” being at his workplace a few

times, “[b]ringing pictures and stuff,” and asking if Emilio was the one who did it, but he

did not see anybody that night. He was never interviewed by Torres’ lawyer, and he was

not subpoenaed for trial.

Blackburn was asked whether he was approached in July of 2005

regarding his recollection of the robbery. He said he had no idea, and did not recall

making a statement. Specifically with regard to paragraph seven of his Declaration under

penalty of perjury, Blackburn denied ever having spoken to the District Attorney and

Case 2:07-cv-01689-LKK-CHS Document 39 Filed 04/02/10 Page 17 of 49
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

18

Torres’ previous attorney and telling them the contents of his Declaration.

Blackburn testified that he recalls being interviewed when he lived on

Corvair Street, but he does not remember exactly who the interviewers were. After that

the district attorney asked him to come to his office once, and he did so. He never really

talked about the case. “It was right at the time of some transition in the case, and they

cut us loose.”

Blackburn testified that he did not know Torres, although he knew who he

was, and knew him by sight.

On cross examination, Blackburn acknowledged that at the time of the

robbery he was living at Jonathan Tisdale’s home, with Jonathan’s brother, Matthew,

and his own girlfriend. He does not remember if Christy Nixon was living there, but she

was there at the time of the robbery. She was Jonathan Tisdale’s girlfriend.

Blackburn was sitting on the couch playing video games. He saw Jon go

to answer the door, but saw nothing after that. He turned in his cell phone, which he

said was not stolen. He did not fear for his safety. He does not recall speaking to a

probation officer, and never told anybody he feared for his safety.

Blackburn acknowledged knowing that police came to the home prior to the

robbery, concerning mail that Jonathan was receiving. He was not there at the time, and

was never asked about the matter.

Blackburn testified that he did not recall one of the intruders speaking to

Lisa and him about knowing who they were and that they had not provided information

to the police.

Blackburn testified that he signed the Declaration, which someone else

had typed, but he did not say everything in the statement “the way it’s wrote up.” He

imagines that he reviewed it first. He testified that despite his signed Declaration, he did

not help take Tisdale to the hospital after the robbery. Moreover, he does remember

Case 2:07-cv-01689-LKK-CHS Document 39 Filed 04/02/10 Page 18 of 49
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

19

speaking with the “DA,” but his girlfriend, Lisa Richards, did not do so.

On re-direct examination, Blackburn again acknowledged speaking to a

D.A., but asserted that he was not contacted by defense counsel at any time.

MATTHEW TISDALE’S TESTIMONY:

Matthew Tisdale testified that he resided at his brother Jon’s home at the

time of the robbery, and was sleeping when it began. He was confined in the bedroom

and told not to leave. “Rick” was the only person he could identify, and ony saw the

backs of the heads of the others. 

Police came to his workplace and asked who was present at the robbery. 

He replied that he did not know. They asked if he knew Emilio Torres, and he yes, but

they did not ask if Torres was there the night of the robbery.

He testified that he remembers his Declaration under penalty of perjury,

and that Paragraph seven is true. That paragraph concerns police officer David

Souza’s showing the brothers two photographic line-ups to determine whether either of

them could identify the men who committed the robbery. In Matthew Tisdale’s opinion,

Souza misrepresented the two line-ups shown. During the first line-up, containing about

six photos, Detective Souza asked Matthew if he recognized any of the photographs as

persons present at the robbery. Matthew told Souza that he recognized Yoyo and Ricky

as members of the group who forced their way into the home. Matthew stated that

neither Mil nor his other brother, Antonio, were included in the first photo line-up. 

Matthew was then shown a second line-up of about four photos. Detective Souza asked

if he knew any of the men in the photos, to which Matthew responded that he knew Mil

and his brother, Antonio. Matthew’s Declaration asserts that he stated clearly that

neither Mil nor Antonio were present at the home on the night of the robbery.

Regarding paragraph eight of his Declaration, Matthew testified he is quite

Case 2:07-cv-01689-LKK-CHS Document 39 Filed 04/02/10 Page 19 of 49
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

20

sure that Mil’s previous attorney never spoke to him about the case, and that “until now”

he was never given the opportunity to speak freely or make a statement about who was

present during the robbery.

During cross examination, Matthew Tisdale repeated that he had been

confined in the bedroom by Ricky during the robbery. He looked out of the door, but it

was dark and he could only see “figures.” He recalls speaking to an officer after the

event, but does not recall anyone saying not to call the cops. He does recall Jonathan

getting on the phone with the police right after it happened. 

Matthew Tisdale testified that he was contacted to give his statement, and

that he believes his Declaration under penalty of perjury was in his own words, to the

best of his memory. 

Matthew acknowledged that Ricky had told him while he was confined in

the bedroom during the robbery that there was “a problem with Mil and your brother.” 

Matthew asked Jonathan right after the event if Mil was there, and Jonathan said “no.”

JONATHON TISDALE’S TESTIMONY:

Upon being asked the first question of his direct examination, Tisdale took

a paper from his pocket, causing the court to notify counsel that “the witness is taking

notes from his pocket. Some document.”

Thereafter, the following exchange took place:

Q. BY MR. SANDERS: Can I ask–

A. I’m just trying to read what I said.

Q. What are you reading from?

A. What I – my declaration that I wrote down.

THE COURT: Sir, at this point we need to know what

you remember. Not what was written down.

Case 2:07-cv-01689-LKK-CHS Document 39 Filed 04/02/10 Page 20 of 49
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

21

THE WITNESS: What I remember?

Q. BY MR. SANDERS: Just to the best of your

recollection, Mr. Tisdale. Very briefly.

A. People came in my house, took everything that I had, beat

me up.

In response to further questioning, Tisdale testified that he knows Emilio,

who lived down the street, but Emilio was not at the house and did not take part in the

assault.

Tisdale said he remembers the Declaration he made in 2005. He was

given a copy of the Declaration while on the witness stand, reviewed it at length, and

testified that it is true. When asked to state what happened in his own words with regard

to paragraph five, he proceeded to read the Declaration.

The Court stated “Sir, I believe he wants your own words. Not for you to

read it,” which resulted in the following exchange:

THE WITNESS: Oh. I don’t understand your

question here.

Q. BY MR. SANDERS: Well, I mean, if

those are your own words, if you feel

comfortable reading it–

A. That’s why I’m reading it.

THE COURT: Okay.

Q. BY MR. SANDERS: I’m sorry for

the confusion. Go ahead.

A. Just read them?

Q. Yeah.

Tisdale proceeded to read paragraph five of the Declaration. 

 With regard to paragraph nine of his Declaration, Tisdale testified that

Torres’ defense counsel did not come to talk to him.

Counsel for the respondent began cross examination by stating:

Case 2:07-cv-01689-LKK-CHS Document 39 Filed 04/02/10 Page 21 of 49
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

22

Q. Mr. Tisdale, if you wouldn’t mind not referring to that

unless you specifically need to refresh your

recollection.

A. Okay.

Q. I just want to see what you recall aside from that.

A. Okay.

At that point in his testimony, Tisdale took a long drink of water. He then

said that the “main face” he remembers was Yoyo. Five minutes later, his head was hit,

he was bleeding, and it was over. 

Tisdale then acknowledged that there were multiple men present. He also

acknowledged that he had said in his statement that he recognized the men from seeing

them at Mil’s home. Asked who Mil is, Tisdale said he is a friend, and that Mil’s real

name is Emilio.

When counsel asked whether Tisdale knew the men through Emilio

Torres, the Court interrupted:

THE COURT: Just a minute. Sir, every time she asks

you a question, you refer to this statement. Would you

please turn it upside down and not refer to it unless

you are unable to recall, and then she will allow you to

refer to your statement. Please turn it over. Thank

you.

Tisdale was then asked about possible inconsistencies in his statement

and his in court testimony. Tisdale explained that his statement that he recognized the

men because he had sometimes seen them around Mil’s home referred only to Yoyo

and Ricky, although the statement said “When I opened the door, there were about five

or six men outside. I recognized them.”

This exchange followed:

BY MR. SANDERS: Excuse me, Your Honor. May my

client refer to the statement she’s reading from?

THE COURT: Well, I would like to know if he

Case 2:07-cv-01689-LKK-CHS Document 39 Filed 04/02/10 Page 22 of 49
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

23

remembers first. And then if he can’t.

Tisdale then said that “them” referred to Yoyo and Ricky. 

Tisdale stated that during the robbery he was pushed backward and

against the kitchen counter, so that he hurt all over. Tisdale related that he was dragged

into the living room and punched, and there was blood.

Tisdale testified that he does not remember being told not to call the cops

or he would be killed. Property was taken from his home. He was not told that he would

get the property back when “you fixed this.” He did not call the police that night, but did

go to the hospital. Asked what he told the people at the hospital when asked how he

was injured, he responded that he does not remember. In response to the question

whether he had given false information to the hospital to prevent them from calling the

police, he responded “no.” He was not afraid that the police would be called. He does

not remember whether officers came to his home that night after he returned from the

hospital. He also could not remember if he received stitches at the hospital.

Asked why he waited to report the robbery to the police, Tisdale testified

that he “had some thinking to do because of my children.” He does not recall speaking

to his girlfriend, Christy, about whether they both should report the robbery. 

Tisdale spoke with an officer about two days after the crime. He did so

“because right and wrong made me decide to do it.” 

After pausing for another drink of water, Tisdale testified that he bought

marijuana from Emilio, but he did not tell the officer that he had accepted mail for Emilio

in exchange for a discounted rate on marijuana. During the mail fraud investigation,

Tisdale did not tell the police that the mail was for Emilio, but did give them Emilio’s

address after “they threatened me.” 

Jonathan testified that he does not recall identifying a person with the

nickname “Loader” as one of the people at the robbery, but he does know a person

Case 2:07-cv-01689-LKK-CHS Document 39 Filed 04/02/10 Page 23 of 49
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

24

named Loader, who is Emilio’s brother. He does not recall Loader’s real name. Asked if

his real name is “Tony,” Tisdale responded “yes.” (In a police report by Officer Vincent

Francois, it is noted that the suspect Medrano identified “Loader” as Anthony Torres.)

Tisdale went on to deny recalling telling police officers many of the

statements attributed to him in police reports. He did acknowledge giving the officers

pages from a police report which had been left at his home. He then continued to deny

multiple other statements allegedly made by him and contained in the police reports.

Tisdale denied telling someone from the District Attorney’s office that he had moved his

children to live with their mother in Las Vegas as a result of the robbery, but

acknowledged that their mother does live in Las Vegas. Thereafter he denied making

any other statements to police. 

On redirect examination, Tisdale affirmed the truth of the testimony he had

given thus far, and the truth of the contents of his Declaration, including that he had not

been shown any of the police reports. He testified that he was never contacted by

defense counsel for Torres, or anyone representing Torres.

Tisdale acknowledged that he was shown a photographic lineup by Officer

Souza, and testified that he had denied that Torres was at his home the night of the

robbery.

ROSA TORRES’ TESTIMONY:

Rosa Torres testified that she is the mother of Emilio Torres and that she

recalls both the events of December, 2000, and those leading to the plea bargain. She

testified that she was at every hearing. They retained a lawyer, Mr. Peters, but when

they could no longer pay him the Court appointed William White to represent him after

the preliminary hearing. 

Ms. Torres testified that she spoke with Mr. White from once to twice a

Case 2:07-cv-01689-LKK-CHS Document 39 Filed 04/02/10 Page 24 of 49
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

25

week, and sometimes as much as four or five times in the course of a week to relate

information from Emilio. She stated that from beginning to end, her best guess was that

she contacted Mr. White a “couple of hundred” times. Emilio would ask her to call White

because White would not go to see him at the county jail, and she would relate Emilio’s

questions.

Ms. Torres testified that she knew both Jonathan and Matthew Tisdale

because they and their children visited her home all the time to go swimming. She had

never met Christy Nixon, Lisa Richards, or Jonathan Randall Blackburn. Her son,

however, was told that all five of these individuals were supposed to testify against him,

so he called her and asked her to tell Mr. White that he needed to interview every one of

them.

Ms. Torres testified that she called and relayed the message to Mr. White

on several occasions. Asked why she called several times, she responded:

Because I’m pushy, and I’m always wanting to know where

we’re at. Okay, Mr. White, did you get ahold of them?

Where are we now? Did you get ahold of them before our

next hearing? When are you going to interview them?

What’s going on? Where are we? That’s why I was always

calling.

Ms. Torres testified that Mr. White told her that they had all been

interviewed by the D.A.’s office, and were all going to come in and testify against Emilio.

Mr. White never interviewed them.

When asked if White said he would interview the witnesses, Ms. Torres

responded, “He’d refuse to. He never would. He didn’t do it. He would say he was, but

he never did it.”

Asked specifically about Jon Tisdale, Ms. Torres responded that Mr. White

said he would send an investigator out to talk to him, but did not do so. The other four

were also not interviewed. 

Case 2:07-cv-01689-LKK-CHS Document 39 Filed 04/02/10 Page 25 of 49
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

26

Asked if White ever discussed subpoenaing those five individuals for trial,

Ms. Torres responded “no.”

Asked if White ever discussed the possibility of a plea bargain with her,

Ms. Torres said “yes,” and that it occurred just outside the courtroom, as Emilio was

getting ready to pick a jury. White told Ms. Torres that every witness was there, and

they were going to testify against Emilio. The best thing Emilio could do was to take a

plea bargain, because otherwise he could get a “30-something years” sentence.

Ms. Torres testified at length about this encounter. She said that she

stood and argued with White, saying they did not want a plea bargain, and that White

needed to “...have those witnesses come forth.” She told him he needed to talk to them. 

White, however, said no, that the D.A. had them there and they were against Emilio. He

said she needed to “have him do a plea bargain,” but she would not let him.

The Judge allowed her go in and sit beside Emilio in the courtroom, and

she tried to talk him out of the plea, but Emilio said that White said he had to take the

plea. Everyone was there, and they were all going against him. He told her he had to

take the plea, and then accepted the plea bargain.

Asked if her son ever talked to her about whether he was innocent or guilty

of the robbery charges, she responded that he had always told her that he was not

there. Jose hit Jon. Moreover, “Jose told us he hit Jon.” Emilio said that he had nothing

to do with the robbery and break-in, and that he and Jon were friends.

On cross examination, Ms. Tisdale testified that she is supportive of her

son and recalls him being tried for the burglary of Beezer Construction property. She

testified on his behalf at that trial. Asked if she was trying to help her son, she

responded no, that she was telling what she saw as the truth.

Asked if she recalled providing information to Mr. White shortly before the

trial, she responded, “Ma’am, it’s been nine years. I’m 57 years old. No, I don’t.”

Case 2:07-cv-01689-LKK-CHS Document 39 Filed 04/02/10 Page 26 of 49
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

After Emilio took the plea bargain, Mr. White asked Ms. Torres to gather

supporting letters for the Judge and to have lots of people in court in support of Emilio. 

She gathered some fifty supporting letters.

Ms. Torres acknowledged that after the Beezer trial she was aware that

Emilio was still facing 27 charges in one case, and that he had other trailing cases in

addition. She acknowledged that she knew her son was “in a fair amount of trouble.”

Although White had told her that the D.A. indicated Emilio was facing “30-

some” years in prison if he did not take the plea bargain, she was not concerned about

that, because if he had gone to jury trial, and the witnesses were called and interviewed,

the jury would have found him innocent.

EMILIO TORRES’ TESTIMONY:

The petitioner Emilio Torres testified that in December of 2000, he had

identity theft and possession for sale charges pending against him. On the night of the

robbery he thinks he was picking his little brother up from college, as his brother’s Blazer

had broken down and Emilio was taking him to and from evening classes.

Torres testified that he took no part in the events of December 21, and did

not know of them until after the fact. He was charged perhaps a week later, and Bob

Peters was retained to represent him. Peters subsequently dropped out, and the Court

appointed William White almost immediately after the preliminary hearing.

Torres testified that White did not go over any of the police reports with

him. Torres did, however, have copies from Peters, which he read. He testified that he

did not understand them, but heard the same statements read by police at the

preliminary hearing.

Asked specifically about Jonathan Tisdale, Torres testified that he had

known him since 1997 or 1998, and could not believe the things that Tisdale allegedly

Case 2:07-cv-01689-LKK-CHS Document 39 Filed 04/02/10 Page 27 of 49
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

28

said to the police. He could understand it, though, as he thought Tisdale might have

been mad at him for the identify theft case, for having mail sent to his house.

Asked about Matthew Tisdale, Torres testified that he also knew him well. 

He said that he didn’t want to believe any of it, but it was right there in the police reports,

which he believed.

Torres had seen Christy Nixon, but never “really talked to her.” Jon had

just begun seeing her before the robbery. Torres had seen Lisa Richards as well,

perhaps outside when he was passing by the house. He might have talked to Jon

Blackburn a few times, but they were not friends.

When White began representing him, Torres asked about the police

reports, and asked White to go talk to “these guys.” He asked him to at least talk to Jon

and Matt; he did not know the other people. He knew that he wasn’t there, and wanted

to know if the people were really saying that he was there that night.

White told Torres that he would get around to it, that he would send an

investigator, and not to worry; he would get to it.

Torres told White as soon as he was assigned to the case that he was

innocent, had nothing to do with it, and was not there when it happened.

Torres believed that it was about a year from the preliminary hearing until

he was scheduled for trial. In all that time, when they went to court, White would only

get another extension for another month. Torres spent 15 or 20 minutes with him, “if

that” when they were in court.

Asked if White ever visited him in jail, Torres responded that he did on one

occasion, “a couple of days before we were going to select a jury to go to trial for this

robbery charge.” That was White’s only visit to Torres at the jail, and they spoke on that

occasion for about twenty minutes.

During the jail interview, White told Torres that he needed to think about

Case 2:07-cv-01689-LKK-CHS Document 39 Filed 04/02/10 Page 28 of 49
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

29

accepting a plea agreement, because all five of the witnesses were going to testify

against him in court. They would say what they said in the police reports, and if he went

to trial, there was no way he would win.

Torres said that White told him he had tried to interview the witnesses, but

had no luck in getting “ahold of them.” The district attorney, however, had already

interviewed them, and “that’s what they’re saying.” He further told Torres that if he did

not accept the 15 year plea agreement, then he would get more than 30 years when

they lost at trial.

Asked if White had spoken to him about half time or good time credits in

prison, Torres testified:

Well, he told me since they were different cases that I’d be

doing 85 percent on the other case, which I think was a total

of ten years for the robbery case and five years for the other

one.

Upon further inquiry, Torres testified that he would be doing 85 percent of

the time on “the other one.”

There followed this exchange:

Q. As opposed to the normal 50 percent?

A. Right.

Q. If you have good time credits?

A. Right.

Q. And how did that make you feel? 

Torres responded that he did not think he could explain how it made him

feel. He was upset that White had not talked to the witnesses, but there was nothing he

could do. He testified that even if he had been out on bail, he would have been afraid to

talk to the witnesses himself. He had to trust and believe White, and that’s what he did.

On the day set for trial, before jury selection, White and Torres had

Case 2:07-cv-01689-LKK-CHS Document 39 Filed 04/02/10 Page 29 of 49
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

30

another conversation. Torres testified that he still was not going to take the deal. He

had told White that during the jail visit, and repeated it on the day of trial. White said he

was going to talk to Torres’ Mother. White said he had already talked to her and the

best thing for him was to take the plea, and this was the last chance he would have, as

once a jury was selected it was going to go to trial.

Torres asked again whether White had interviewed the witnesses. White

said no, but that all five of them were outside the courtroom, ready to start the trial after

the jury was selected. Torres testified that he saw no trial preparation by White.

Asked why he took the plea, Torres testified that getting out of prison in his

mid to late 30's is a lot better than getting out in his mid to late 40's.

Torres pleaded no contest and was sentenced to 15 years, with no good

time credits. He will serve 85% of his time. He is not eligible for half time. Moreover,

the robbery charges prevent him from being camp eligible, where he would need to

serve only a third of his time. Instead, he will serve nearly thirteen years.

On cross examination, Torres acknowledged that he was out on bail most

of the time between the time of the robbery and his sentencing. During that time he

accrued new cases. On May 24, 2002, he was arrested for domestic violence, a chop

shop operation, a stolen vehicle, and receiving stolen property. Those charges were

dismissed, and he was again placed on bail. On December 19, 2002, he was arrested

for possession of burglary tools, but that charge was also dismissed. On February 12,

2003, he was arrested for domestic violence. 

The Beezer Construction burglary and December 21, 2000 robbery at

issue here also occurred while Torres was out on bail in his various cases. 

Torres testified that he was present with counsel at his preliminary hearing,

and listened to the evidence presented. He heard that credit cards in the names of

others were found in his room and in his home. He testified that he does not recall that

Case 2:07-cv-01689-LKK-CHS Document 39 Filed 04/02/10 Page 30 of 49
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

31

letters were found. He does remember that the officers found a book with personnel

information for Department of Justice employees on his bed, and that Brandon Silva told

officers that he had stolen the book for Torres. There was also testimony about blank

alien registration cards in his room. An assault weapon and a nine-millimeter pistol were

found. Methamphetamine and scales were recovered, as were packaging materials and

a large quantity of marijuana. There was a stolen car in his garage.

Torres recalls Judge Abbott informing him that he was facing 37 years and

eight months, with multiple strikes, and he understands the significance of a strike. He

acknowledged that he was convicted of all charges in the Beezer trial, despite his

defense that he was only picking up a friend and giving him a ride. Moreover, he

understood that after the Beezer trial he was still facing the 27 count case, as well as

other cases. 

Torres testified that he had considered Jonathan Tisdale a friend and was

angry that Tisdale had told police about the fraudulent mail. Torres’ brother is Antonio,

also known as Tony Torres. He also knows Yoyo, whose real name is Jose Polido, a

friend. Adrian Medrano is a friend from school. Enrique or Rick Torres is Emilio’s

brother. He also knows Carlos Madrigal.

Torres acknowledged that at the preliminary hearing he heard testimony

that a bloody fingerprint identified as his own was found on the police report left at

Jonathan Tisdale’s house during the robbery, and that the police report, minus the

pages left at Tisdale’s home, was found at his own home.

Torres testified, however, that a number of people other than himself

stayed with him at his house, and that in November he had left his home and moved

back in with his mother.

Torres testified that he did not remember seeing in the police report that

Adrian Medrano told the police that on December 21, 2000, Medrano and Ricky were on

Case 2:07-cv-01689-LKK-CHS Document 39 Filed 04/02/10 Page 31 of 49
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

32

their way home from work when Torres called them to stop at Jonathan Tisdale’s house

because Torres needed a truck, or that Medrano’s statement also said that Emilio was

already at the house, as were Loader and Yoyo.

Torres said that he thinks he may have read in the police report that his

cousin’s ex wife, Sara Espinoa, told police officers that Emilio took records from All-Safe

Construction, where she was employed. He did not recall her saying that she received a

free or reduced rate on marijuana for allowing him access to the records.

Torres also did not recall reading in the police report that Espinosa had

said that Torres had a temper and had beaten a man known as Dude for telling on him,

and that although Dude initially pressed charges, he later changed his mind.

Torres was shown a copy of his Declaration signed on August 7 in

Susanville, with no year noted. Torres said he signed the statement a couple of years

ago. He acknowledged that in that statement he did not say anything about repeatedly

telling his attorney that he was not at the robbery, or that he did not commit the robbery.

Torres acknowledged that in his second Declaration filed with the Court, he

added more information.

On redirect examination, Torres was asked what he understood to be the

meaning of paragraph six of his Declaration, in which he stated that he pleaded no

contest only after his attorney advised him it was highly unlikely that he could convince a

jury that he was not guilty, given the number of witnesses and the physical evidence

against him. Torres responded that it means “I pretty much am saying I didn’t have

anything to do with that robbery.”

TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM WHITE, ESQ.:

William White, who was appointed as counsel for Torres just following the

preliminary hearing, was called as a witness for the respondent. He testified that at the

Case 2:07-cv-01689-LKK-CHS Document 39 Filed 04/02/10 Page 32 of 49
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

33

time of the federal evidentiary hearing he had been practicing criminal law for twenty two

years. He has a private practice, but is on the Sacramento Conflict Panel, at level four,

qualified to handle all cases including homicide, but not death penalty cases.

After White was appointed to represent Torres, his client was out on bail a

significant amount of time, and picked up several new cases. Asked why Torres’ cases

went on for a couple of years, White responded that he did not know, as he did not

represent him the entire time. Torres, however, was agreeable to the time lapse and

was not pushing the cases, as he was not in a hurry to get to trial.

White testified that he talked with Torres about his cases. At first, before

the new cases were filed, he went to White’s office, and they also spoke in court. White

testified that Torres did not want to discuss the cases, and White did not force him. 

White explained that this is not unusual, as “people don’t want to talk about what

happened.” They prefer to “talk in a roundabout way.” Torres never said that he “never

did this, or I didn’t do it.” Torres asked what would happen on the next court date, would

he still be out, and how they could keep the bail going.

Specifically, Torres did not ever tell White that he was not at the robbery. 

White testified that although it is pretty rare, he has had clients tell him that

they were not at a crime. When that occurs, it is his practice to ask where they were at

the time of the offense, and to try to find evidence such as a purchase of gas, use of a

credit card, appearance on a video camera some place, or someone who can verify the

alibi. He did not have that conversation with Emilio Torres.

White testified that he had an investigator available to assist with the case,

and that he generally tells his clients that, but cannot specifically recall telling Torres.

White recalls that over the course of his representation of Torres, two

District Attorneys were assigned to the case. The first was Jeff Ritchard, and the

second was Ron Wells, who got the case after Torres’ bail ran out. White spoke with

Case 2:07-cv-01689-LKK-CHS Document 39 Filed 04/02/10 Page 33 of 49
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

34

Wells about the case, but Wells was difficult to pin down about the cases would

proceed. 

At some point Wells made an offer of ten years, but that was rejected. 

Shortly before trial on the Beezer Construction case, a fifteen year plea deal was

offered. The offer had gone up because the case was ready for trial, and lower offers

often disappear at that stage of a case. White testified that he cannot recall for certain

whether the fifteen year offer was made by the District Attorney or the Court.

White discussed the fifteen year offer with Torres, who did not “want to

take any deals.” White talked with Torres “a lot,” but Torres rejected the offer and

wanted to go to trial, which they did.

After the Beezer case concluded and the Court found the bifurcated

enhancement allegation to be true, there were additional discussions about the plea

deal. White testified that he discussed the possible sentencing outcome if Torres were

tried serially, and Judge Abbott’s opinion was that the time would be in the 30 year range

at the low end, and not much more at the maximum, but from 30 to 35 years at the

minimum. Wells, the prosecutor, was present during those discussions. White himself

had calculated Torres exposure at 35 years, and e-mailed that to Wells, who agreed with

his calculation.

White talked with Torres about his sentence exposure. Torres was subject

to a strike for each person in the house at the robbery. He was also charged with

residential burglary, which is a strike, and dissuading a witness, which carried a strike. 

Asked why strikes were a concern for Torres, White explained that if he

had two strikes which did not result from the same transaction, it would be a serious

concern for a young person such as Torres, as it is easy to pick up a new felony and go

to prison for life. White said Torres understood that.

White testified that during his representation of Emilio Torres, he spoke

Case 2:07-cv-01689-LKK-CHS Document 39 Filed 04/02/10 Page 34 of 49
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

35

with his client’s mother both in person and by telephone. They discussed Emilio and his

court appearances. They “got along pretty well.”

White recalls discussing evidentiary matters regarding the Beezer case,

but “we never talked about the other cases.” White called Ms. Torres as a witness in the

Beezer trial.

White was aware of the police report which had a fingerprint “that came

back to Mr. Torres.” The report also had blood on it, which connected Torres to the

scene of the robbery. White testified that although not conclusive, this was strong

evidence.

After the Beezer trial was lost, White recommended that Torres take the 15

year deal, which included one strike. White explained that it is always up to the client

whether to take a plea deal. 

It was White’s opinion that Torres would be convicted on the robbery case,

because the police report was at the house. Moreover, he was identified not only by the

people in the house who knew him, but by a man who was not his brother, but was

there, caught by the police, and said that Emilio was there. Further, “he was going after

these people who had ratted on him in the prior case,” which gave him a motive. White

believed that the state had a “pretty strong case.”

White testified that he does not interview everyone mentioned in a police

report. He does do so if he thinks it will be fruitful, such as if a client says “hey, I wasn’t

there.” In Torres’s case, he could then have interviewed his brother, who was there, and

Mr. Medrano, to find out “why he is lying about him being there.” On the other hand,

interviewing witnesses can limit cross examination and argument, as witnesses may

speak of extra things “that just sort of wrap a person up a little tighter.” He does not

interview a person unless he has reason to think something is inconsistent in the

statement, or doesn’t seem right. There are many reasons to re-interview a witness,

Case 2:07-cv-01689-LKK-CHS Document 39 Filed 04/02/10 Page 35 of 49
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

36

particularly if a client states that he was not there.

The result in Torres’ case is sometimes called a global disposition, in which

all pending cases are wrapped together, and some are dismissed. In this case, the

parties arrived at a number of years to be served in prison, and the number of strikes,

and then determined what charges should be pled to.

On cross examination, White testified that he does not recall exactly how

many court appointment cases he had at the time of the Torres case, but the number is

usually around ten to twelve. It is also normal for him to have one or two private cases. 

White acknowledged that he is aware that police officers are sometimes

overzealous, erroneous, or intentionally lying in a report or testimony. 

White knew that the robbery case was very serious and was aware of the

fingerprint. He had discovery indicating that someone from the Sacramento Crime Lab

found that the latent print came back to Torres.

White acknowledged that on the day of trial he had not yet received a

witness list, so he did not know if the forensic specialist was there to testify about the

fingerprint. He testified that he “wasn’t planning on going to trial.”

White further acknowledged that on the Torres case he could have spent

$1,000 on investigation without stating a cause or need, and could have exceeded that

amount upon a showing of justification.

Asked to explain why he thought a robbery case with five witnesses on

which there were police reports did not necessitate interview of the witnesses, White

spoke of the background of the case. Tisdale knew Torres, and had explained the

connection, with Torres getting mail at that house, and that Tisdale got a reduced price

on “weed” for allowing mail to go to the house. Moreover, Tisdale had told the police

what happened. Torres had a motive to commit the offense. Further, there were “easier

people” to ask about the cases, including Torres’ brother who was present during the

Case 2:07-cv-01689-LKK-CHS Document 39 Filed 04/02/10 Page 36 of 49
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

37

beating. White said it seemed to him that the brother would have called to say that

Emilio was not there, or Emilio himself would have told White that he was not there, and

the witnesses were lying. 

White testified that if “that were the case” he would have interviewed the

witnesses, or perhaps shown them a lineup to see if they knew the difference between

Emilio and his brother, or were mistaken or had a motive to lie. White said that he did

not have “any of those suspicions.”

Upon further questioning, White affirmed his testimony that nobody asked

him to investigate the police reports, or told him that the witnesses might have been

falsely quoted in the reports. 

White testified that he does not recall Torres ever telling him that he heard

evidence at the preliminary hearing in this case which he thought was incorrect.

V. FINDINGS OF FACT

Eight witnesses testified at the evidentiary hearing. Each was carefully

observed by the undersigned as to demeanor and apparent truthfulness.

CHRISTY NIXON:

Christy Nixon testified that she was at the Tisdale home on the night of the

robbery, sitting on the couch. She may have heard some words, but could not see

anything. Although Jon Tisdale is now her ex-husband, she does not know who his

friends were at the time of the robbery. Specifically, she did not know Emilio Torres,

although Randy Blackburn testified at the evidentiary hearing that Nixon was Jonathan’s

girlfriend at the time of the robbery.

Nixon testified that she was never contacted by the police or interviewed

Case 2:07-cv-01689-LKK-CHS Document 39 Filed 04/02/10 Page 37 of 49
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

38

concerning the robbery, and was never asked if Emilio was there, and in any event, she

does not know him. She remembers the police from November, prior to the robbery, but

not afterwards. Nixon did acknowledge that things were taken from the home and that

she was frightened.

Nixon did not seem overly nervous or apprehensive at the evidentiary

hearing, but her testimony was simply not credible. She essentially testified that she

remembered only that she was there the night of the robbery and knew that people

came to the home and took things, but she did not remember talking to the police, or for

that matter, to Jon Tisdale about the robbery. She was adamant that she did not know

Emilio Torres despite Officer Fuenzalida’s testimony at the preliminary hearing that she

told him that when the intruders entered the house she tried to go upstairs, but Mil

grabbed her and sat her on the couch. She also cannot recall speaking to Officer Souza,

or telling him that she saw Emilio, or that Jon told her that Emilio was there.

Nixon does not just contradict the testimony of the two police officers, she

professes to not even recall being contacted and interviewed by them, despite the fact

that she was witness to a serious, violent robbery.

The undersigned finds the testimony of this witness not credible.

LISA RICHARDS:

Lisa Richards was interviewed by Detective David Souza, who testified at

the preliminary hearing that Richards could not identify any of the intruders at the

robbery. She offered only the hearsay statements that Jon Tisdale had told her that Mil

was the one who had done it, and that Matthew Tisdale said that all the men were family

members. At the federal evidentiary hearing, Richards testified that she does not recall

the hearsay statements attributed to her. She further testified that she has never met

Emilio Torres, and does not know him. Until the statement given during the federal

Case 2:07-cv-01689-LKK-CHS Document 39 Filed 04/02/10 Page 38 of 49
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

39

proceeding, long after the robbery, she does not recall ever being interviewed about the

robbery, by either the police or defense counsel. On cross examination, she was able to

verify certain events, such as the injuries to Jon Tisdale, his statement that money had

been taken, and that he was taken for medical treatment that night. She denied that Jon

told her Mil had committed the crime, and that Matthew had told her all the suspects

were family members. She further acknowledged that she was uncertain as to her

statement that she had never been interviewed by the police, but she knew she was not

interviewed by anyone in uniform.

This witness appeared calm and truthful at the evidentiary hearing, but

could offer no evidence regarding whether Emilio Torres was present during the robbery.

JON RANDALL BLACKBURN:

Detective Souza testified at the preliminary hearing that while Blackburn

could have seen some of the events at the robbery, he could not identify any of the

assailants. Souza did testify that Blackburn identified certain items taken during the

robbery, including the Nextel 1600 cell phone, which belonged to him. At the federal

hearing, Blackburn rebutted Souza’s testimony by saying that the phone had not been

stolen, but he had turned it in to his boss “as lost” the day before the robbery.

Blackburn appeared sullen and defensive at the evidentiary hearing,

insisting, for example, that during the robbery he did not fear for his safety and had

never told anyone that he feared for his safety, although he and his girlfriend Lisa

Richards moved with her child from Tisdale’s house the night of the robbery. 

Blackburn’s answers to all questions were brief and clip, sometimes curt.

The undersigned finds that Blackburn was not forthright in his efforts to

respond to questioning. Specifically, it is unlikely that he had reported his cell phone as

lost prior to the robbery, as it was found during the execution of a search warrant on

Case 2:07-cv-01689-LKK-CHS Document 39 Filed 04/02/10 Page 39 of 49
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

40

January 1, 2001, subsequent to the robbery, at the property of Emilio Torres, whom

Blackburn professed not to know, although he acknowledged that he knew of Torres,

and knew him by sight.

MATTHEW TISDALE:

Detective Souza testified that Matthew had reported that he was in the

garage during the robbery and could not see Emilio Torres, but heard his voice.

At the evidentiary hearing, Matthew Tisdale testified that he was confined

in his bedroom during the robbery and saw no one other than “Rick” (Ricky Torres). He

acknowledged that he told the police that he knew Emilio Torres, but stated that they did

not ask him if Torres was at the robbery. They did ask him who was present at the

scene, and he told them he did not know. 

The testimony of this witness that the police did not ask him if Torres was

present at the robbery is simply not credible in view of his own testimony that he told

them that he knew Emilio Torres.

JONATHAN TISDALE:

It was clearly difficult for the lawyers to question this witness, as he

appeared incapable of speaking without direct reference to the Declaration under

penalty of perjury he had given some five years after the robbery. When counsel for the

petitioner insisted that he state what he remembers, very briefly, just to the best of his

recollection, he responded, “[P]eople came in my house, took everything that I had, beat

me up.”

It required effort to elicit details from Jon Tisdale, always accompanied by

his efforts to refer to his Declaration. He testified that he knows Emilio Torres, who lived

down the street, but that Emilio was not at the house and did not take part in the assault. 

Case 2:07-cv-01689-LKK-CHS Document 39 Filed 04/02/10 Page 40 of 49
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

41

Tisdale acknowledged remembering the Declaration he made in 2005. He

was then handed a copy of the Declaration while on the witness stand, and reviewed it

at length before testifying that it is true. This despite his prior identification of the

document he had pulled from his pocket in response to the first question, as “my

declaration that I wrote down.”

Asked to state what happened in his own words with regard to paragraph

five, he proceeded to read the Declaration. Advised by the Court to use his own words,

he was rescued by counsel, who told him he could read, “if those are your own words, if

you feel comfortable reading it.” Tisdale responded “That’s why I’m reading it.” 

Counsel for the respondent began her cross examination by asking Tisdale

yet again to not refer to the document unless he specifically needed to refresh his

recollection. Tisdale then took a long drink of water before attempting that task.

He testified that the “main face” he remembers is Yoyo. Five minutes later,

his head was hit, he was bleeding, and it was over. 

Counsel was able to elicit that there were multiple men, and Tisdale

acknowledged that in his Declaration he recognized them from seeing them at Emilio’s

home.

When counsel asked whether Tisdale knew the men through Emilio

Torres, the Court again addressed the witness concerning his reference to the

Declaration each time he was asked a question, and instructed him to turn the document

over. 

The next question asked about possible inconsistences in his statement

and his court testimony, prompting counsel for the petitioner to ask the Court to allow

him to refer to the statement respondent’s counsel was “reading from.”

Tisdale gave few specifics and did not confirm most of the testimony given

by the officers at the preliminary hearing. 

Case 2:07-cv-01689-LKK-CHS Document 39 Filed 04/02/10 Page 41 of 49
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

42

Tisdale testified that he does not remember whether officers came to his

home that night after he returned from the hospital. 

Asked why he delayed reporting the robbery to the police, Tisdale said that

he needed to think “because of my children.” He did speak to an officer about two days

after the crime “because right and wrong made me decide to do it.” He then paused to

drink more water.

The testimony given by this witness is given in more detail, supra, in the

section on the evidentiary hearing. The details just given are reiterated to provide the

reader with a sense of the extreme difficulty this crime victim evinced while testifying

under oath about an assault upon himself, of which his friend, Emilio Torres, stands

convicted.

The undersigned finds the testimony of this witness to be wholly incredible. 

Whether his apparent apprehension stemmed from knowledge that he had previously

given statements at serious odds with his present testimony, or apprehension of

retaliation by either authorities who could press that matter of false statements on one

occasion or the other, or by someone else, is of no consequence. He was clearly

nervous and far more concerned with not deviating from his Declaration under penalty of

perjury than with answering truthfully what he recalled about the events of the robbery.

ROSA TORRES:

Rosa Torres, mother of the petitioner, did her very best for her son. She

testified in the Beezer trial, states that she was at every hearing in the robbery case,

called Mr. White hundreds of times, insisting that he interview the witnesses to the

robbery, all to no avail. She strongly resisted the plea bargain, encouraging her son to

reject it. She testified that Emilio had told her he had nothing to do with the robbery, as

he and Jon Tisdale were friends. She testified that Jose hit Jon, and “Jose told us he hit

Case 2:07-cv-01689-LKK-CHS Document 39 Filed 04/02/10 Page 42 of 49
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

43

Jon.” [Jose Pulido pleaded to beating Jon Tisdale.]

The undersigned does not credit the testimony of this witness. She was

sure of herself, even smug, and confident of her ability to convince. She wanted to help

her son, both before and after the plea, but she either did not understand the obvious

benefit of the plea bargain to Emilio, or truly believed that she could convince a new jury

of his innocence, despite her failure to do so in the Beezer case.

EMILIO TORRES:

The petitioner, Emilio Torres, testified that he read the police reports and

heard the police officers testify during his preliminary hearing, and essentially could not

believe that his friends had said such things about him. He acknowledged that he was

not innocent of everything, but insisted that he was not involved in the robbery, which is

the offense currently preventing him from receiving as much reduction in time to be

served as he would like. He spoke as though he was and is bewildered by the witness’

alleged statements to police, despite acknowledging that Jonathan Tisdale had reason

to be angry at him for “having mail sent to his house.”

Of course, Jonathan Tisdale was the primary witness in the robbery case.

He was the one who during the investigation unequivocally identified Emilio Torres as

being present at the robbery and assault. Most of the other “witnesses” had said either

little or nothing to incriminate Torres. 

Torres insisted that he had told his lawyer, William White, that he was

innocent, and further asked him to interview the witnesses. Torres did not testify that he

had urged White to press his case to trial so that he could be exonerated. He was

dismissive of White’s efforts on his behalf. He testified, “I didn’t – I mean, he had his

little briefcase. That was it. I didn’t see any witness list. I didn’t see anything, any

preparation for trial, nothing.”

Case 2:07-cv-01689-LKK-CHS Document 39 Filed 04/02/10 Page 43 of 49
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

44

He further testified, logically, that getting out of jail in his 30's was better

than getting out in his 40's. As already noted, Torres had read the police reports and

listened to the police officers’ testify during his preliminary hearing. He knew perfectly

well that the forensic evidence presented at the preliminary hearing would likely be more

abundant at trial after further testing. Torres was also aware of the abundance of

evidence obtained by search warrant at his own home. He must have been aware in

addition that Jose Pulido, a/k/a Yoyo, who pleaded guilty to the robbery, might testify

against him in hopes of securing a better outcome in his own case. In short, the

undersigned does not credit Torres’ testimony that he would not have taken the deal and

instead would have proceeded to trial had counsel interviewed the witnesses or

otherwise undertaken additional investigation, even if he expected the witnesses to

testify favorably for him at trial. 

WILLIAM WHITE:

William White, counsel for Emilio Torres beginning after the preliminary

hearing, testified that he has been a criminal defense lawyer for most of his career, as

detailed, supra. During the course of his career, he has gotten to know many of the

Judges on the Sacramento County Superior Court bench, and the Assistant District

Attorneys who prosecute cases before them. 

When assigned to represent Emilio Torres, who was out on bond at that

time, White met with him both at his office and in court. The first case pending at that

time was the identity theft case. During the course of his representation of Torres, his

client accrued new charges for several offenses, but he remained on bail for a significant

time.

White testified that Torres was agreeable to remain on bail, and did not

wish to push the cases to trial. Torres did not want to discuss the facts of the cases, but

Case 2:07-cv-01689-LKK-CHS Document 39 Filed 04/02/10 Page 44 of 49
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

45

was concerned about what would happen each time a court date was scheduled, and

about how to “keep the bail going.”

White testified that Torres never told him that he was not at the robbery at

Tisdale’s home. Had he done so, White would have attempted to establish an alibi

defense. Although he had an investigator at his disposal, he saw no reason to interview

the witnesses who had already given statements to the police, and neither Torres nor his

mother asked White to do so. 

Faced with a client with multiple cases, already convicted by jury and

facing sentencing on one of them, and with the potential of a very long sentence and

multiple strikes on both that case and others, White concentrated on developing a global

plea agreement under which Torres would face a maximum of fifteen years in prison and

one strike, for all of his pending cases.

White did not hesitate to acknowledge that he saw no reason to interview

the witnesses, who to the extent that they inculpated Torres at all, were essentially

consistent in their descriptions of the events of the robbery during their independent

statements to the police, which were corroborated by physical and forensic evidence

against his client, who had a motive to commit the robbery. 

White also acknowledged that he had spoken with Ms. Torres many times,

and said they got along well. He testified that no one told him that the witnesses to the

robbery might have been falsely quoted in the police reports. 

White testified forthrightly and logically, explaining his reasons for pursuing

the defense of Emilio Torres as he did. The undersigned fully credits the testimony of

this witness.

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:07-cv-01689-LKK-CHS Document 39 Filed 04/02/10 Page 45 of 49
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

46

VI. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

A. Applicable Law for Federal Habeas Corpus

An application for writ of habeas corpus by a person in custody under

judgment of a state court can be granted only for violations of the Constitution or laws of

the United States. 28 U.S.C. §2254(a); see also Peltier v. Wright, 15 F.3d 860, 861 (9th

Cir. 1993); Middleton v. Cupp, 768 F.2d 1083, 1085 (9th Cir. 1985) (citing Engle v.

Isaac, 456 U.S. 107, 119 (1982)). This petition for writ of habeas corpus was filed after

the effective date of, and thus is subject to, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death

Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”). Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 326 (1997); see also

Weaver v. Thompson, 197 F.3d 359 (9th Cir. 1999). Under AEDPA, federal habeas

corpus relief is not available for any claim decided on the merits in state court

proceedings unless the state court’s adjudication of the claim:

(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an

unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law,

as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or

(2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable

determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented

in the State court proceeding.

28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); see also Penry v. Johnson, 532 U.S. 782, 792-93 (2001); Williams

v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 402-03 (2000); Lockhart v. Terhune, 250 F.3d 1223, 1229 (9th

Cir. 2001).

B. Applicable Law for Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

In the context of a guilty plea, a petitioner is denied effective assistance of

counsel when counsel’s plea advice resulted in an involuntary plea. See Tollet v.

Henderson, 411 U.S. at 267-68. Under the applicable standard of Strickland v.

Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88 (1984), it must first be shown that, considering all the

Case 2:07-cv-01689-LKK-CHS Document 39 Filed 04/02/10 Page 46 of 49
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

47

circumstances, counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of

reasonableness. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687-88. A strong presumption exists, however,

“that counsel’s performance falls within the ‘wide range of professional assistance,’”

Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365, 381 (1986) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689),

and that counsel “exercised acceptable professional judgment in all significant decisions

made.” Hughes v. Borg, 898 F.2d 695, 702 (9th Cir. 1990) (citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at

689).

A finding of ineffective assistance of counsel also requires a showing of

actual prejudice caused by counsel’s deficient performance. Strickland, 466 U.S. at

693-94. Prejudice exists where “there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s

unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Id. at

694. To show prejudice in the context of a guilty or no contest plea, there must exist a

reasonable probability that, but for counsels’ errors, petitioner would not have pleaded

but would have insisted on going to trial. Hill, 474 U.S. at 59; Langford, 110 F.3d at

1388.

C. Resolution of the Claim

First, with respect to the objective reasonableness test, petitioner has

failed to show that White’s performance was actually deficient. There is no rule that

requires a defense attorney to interview all prospective trial witnesses. Bragg v. Galaza,

242 F.3d 1082, 1088 (9th Cir. 2001). The reasonableness of counsel’s actions with

respect a decision such as whether to interview witnesses is “determined or substantially

influenced by the defendant’s own statements or actions.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 691. 

There is no duty to investigate when the defendant does not convey to counsel any facts

warranting an investigation. Langford, 110 F.3d at 1387. As set forth above, petitioner’s

testimony that he informed White that he was innocent of the robbery, and further asked

Case 2:07-cv-01689-LKK-CHS Document 39 Filed 04/02/10 Page 47 of 49
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

48

him to interview the witnesses, is not credible, while White’s testimony that Torres never

claimed to be innocent of the robbery is credible under the circumstances of this case.

Accordingly, the fact that White did not conduct interviews or investigation to confirm the

witness statements as reported by police was not objectively unreasonable. Under the

facts of this case, White simply had no reason to do so. Faced with what appeared to

be a very strong case for the State, combined with the potential that Torrres could incur

a sentence in excess of 30 years with multiple strikes if found guilty at trial, White’s

decision to forego additional investigation in favor of pursuing a global plea agreement 

acceptable to his client was perfectly reasonable and fell within the wide range of

professional assistance available.

Torres has also failed to demonstrate the required element of prejudice. 

The evidence belies his assertion that he would have proceeded to trial had counsel

interviewed the witnesses, even if counsel had ascertained that their trial testimony

would not match the information in the police reports. Petitioner’s no contest plea on

the robbery count did not stand alone; it was part of a package deal that disposed of

multiple cases and counts, including those on which he had already been convicted by a

jury. The plea resulted in the attribution of only one strike for petitioner, whereas he

could have received multiple strikes if he had proceeded to trial. Emilio Torres

understood the seriousness of the charges he faced and the extent of his exposure if

found guilty. He was also aware of the extent of the State’s evidence against him.

Under these circumstances, it is simply not plausible that Torres would have rejected the

plea agreement and proceeded to trial on the robbery count, but for counsel’s alleged

failure to interview the victims/witnesses. Torres is not entitled to relief for his claim of

ineffective assistance of counsel.

/////

/////

Case 2:07-cv-01689-LKK-CHS Document 39 Filed 04/02/10 Page 48 of 49
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

49

VIII. CONCLUSION

For all the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that

petitioner’s application for writ of habeas corpus be DENIED.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States

District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l).

Within 20 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party

may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a

document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed within ten days

after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 

Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: April 1, 2010

Case 2:07-cv-01689-LKK-CHS Document 39 Filed 04/02/10 Page 49 of 49