Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Kulwant Singh Gadri v. Gary Swarthout

March 8, 2012

KULWANT SINGH GADRI, PETITIONER,
v.
GARY SWARTHOUT, RESPONDENT.



ORDER

1. INTRODUCTION

Petitioner, Kulwant Singh Gadri, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se witha petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner is currently serving an aggregate sentence of 170 years to life plus life with the possibility of parole following his 2008 jury convictions in the San Joaquin County Superior Court for six counts of attempted premeditated murder, with penalty enhancements as to each of the six counts for personal and intentional discharge of a firearm during the commission of the crimes, infliction of great bodily injury, and use of a firearm while committing or attempting to commit a felony. In addition, the jury found Petitioner guilty of a seventh count of attempted premeditated murder, with penalty enhancements as to that count for personal and intentional discharge of a firearm during the commission of that crime and for use of a firearm in the commission of a felony or attempted felony, as well as an eighth count for discharging a firearm from a motor vehicle. Here, Petitioner challenges the constitutionality of his convictions.

II. CLAIMS

Petitioner presents two grounds for relief. Specifically, the claims are as follow:

(1) Ineffective assistance of counsel;

(2) Newly discovered evidence; and

(3) Cumulative error of a constitutional magnitude.

Based on a thorough review of the record and applicable law, it is recommended that both of Petitioner's claims be denied.

III. BACKGROUND

The relevant facts of Petitioner's crime were summarized in the unpublished opinion of the California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, as follows:

This case involves a nighttime drive-by shooting of several people in a parking lot of a Stockton restaurant on May 14, 2006.

The story begins earlier that day, at a kabaddi tournament in Stockton. Kabaddi is a rugby-like game, popular with Punjabi and Sikh cultures.

Defendants Pardeep and KulwantFN1 attended the tournament, and were seen throughout the day disputing the tournament committee's decision to bar a particular player. Defendant Pardeep confronted Satwinder G. (Also known as "John""), and defendant Kulwant threatened a committee member, Manjit U., over this issue. Satwinder is a longtime kabaddi supporter and an apparent prominent, wealthy member of the Sikh/Punjabi community.

FN1. Because many of the people involved in this case share the same last names, for clarity we will use first names.

Later in the day, a physical fight broke out at the tournament. On one side of the scuffle were defendants and two of their friends, Sarwan S., who had a knife, and "Happy," who brandished a gun. After the fight, defendant Pardeep told committee member Manjit that "[w]e're not going to let [Satwinder] take the cup [first-place trophy] today no matter what happens." But that is what happened, as the team sponsored by Satwinder won the tournament. Many of the eyewitnesses to this fight were also eyewitnesses and/or victims in the later shooting, and at least two of these eyewitnesses (Gurdev A. and Belhar R.) actually fought against defendants' faction.

At the tournament, it was announced there would be a post-tournament dinner at the Sansar Restaurant in Stockton. And after that dinner ended around 11:15 p.m., Satwinder, along with eight other people who had been at the tournament, walked out to the restaurant's parking lot. At this point, a slow-moving silver BMW drove by and its front and rear passengers discharged a barrage of gunfire at Satwinder's group.

Four of the people in Satwinder's group - - Satwinder himself, Gurdeep S., Raghbir S., and Belhar R. - - all of whom knew both defendants, positively identified defendants as the shooters. Two others - - Gurdev A. and Gulwinder S. - - identified defendant Kulwant as a shooter.

The defense highlighted inconsistencies between these testimonial identifications and some statements provided to law enforcement. For example, Satwinder initially stated to law enforcement that he did not see what the shooters were wearing, but several hours later described defendant Pardeep's attire; Gurdeep, while being treated at the hospital, did not identify defendants and said he was unable to get a good look at the shooters; Raghbir, while also at the hospital being treated, was unable to describe the vehicle involved though he did so at trial; Belhar told officers at one point he did not know the people who were shooting (language comprehension may have bee an issue here); and Gurdev gave inconsistent statements as to defendant Pardeep being a shooter. Furthermore, Satwinder was close with all of these eyewitnesses. One other individual, Santokh J., who owned the Sansar Restaurant and who was not close with these eyewitnesses, also witnessed the shooting. He was standing near Satwinder, and was shot three times. Although Santokh could not identify the shooters, he heard Satwinder mention the names "Kulwant and Pardeep" right after the bullets flew. Moreover, Santokh had told a police officer that one of the shooters was an Indian male wearing an orange or yellow T-shirt (which matched the description for both defendants).

A "tip" led officers to the silver BMW, and the car was towed to a Department of Justice (DOJ) crime lab on May 16. The car was apparently owned by a friend of defendants and sold about a month after the shooting.FN2 A DOJ firearms expert and a DOJ fingerprint expert did not obtain from the car any inculpatory evidence within their respective realms, but both experts noted that the car had been recently cleaned thoroughly.

FN2. The friend was Jasvir G., who was also charged with crimes. These charges, however, were dismissed ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.