Opinion
E071954
08-18-2020
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. TYLER ALEXANDER EAGLE, Defendant and Appellant.
Robert V. Vallandigham, Jr., under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Arlene A. Sevidal and James M. Toohey, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super.Ct.No. FSB17001095) OPINION APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Gregory S. Tavill, Judge. Affirmed. Robert V. Vallandigham, Jr., under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Arlene A. Sevidal and James M. Toohey, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
A jury convicted Tyler Alexander Eagle of forcible rape and sexual penetration by a foreign object, both counts involving a victim under 18 years old. On appeal, Eagle argues that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to investigate and use certain electronic messages between Eagle and the victim. Eagle argues that the subject messages were exculpatory. We conclude that counsel did not render ineffective assistance, and we therefore affirm.
BACKGROUND
I. Trial
Sixteen-year-old Jane Doe met 19-year-old Eagle through a mutual friend, Scott Lindo. Doe was staying with her father at the time, and Lindo lived downstairs from her father. Lindo and Doe's father were friends, and Lindo had also lived with Doe's sister. Lindo was almost like a brother to Doe.
Doe spent most of the day in question at Lindo's apartment with her sister; Eagle was also there. Doe went upstairs to her father's apartment at around 9:00 or 10:00 p.m., and her father was asleep when she got there. He always closed and locked his bedroom door when he was sleeping and was a very sound sleeper.
At about midnight, Lindo arrived and wanted to speak to Doe's father. Doe had learned how to open her father's locked door in case of an emergency, so she opened the door for Lindo. Lindo went into her father's room but could not wake him. Lindo and Doe were casually talking when Eagle arrived. The three of them talked for a while, and Doe showed them some new clothes, including the underwear that she was wearing. She showed them the new underwear by lifting up her shirt and pulling down the side of her yoga shorts to expose her hip area.
Lindo left after Doe showed them the new clothes. She and Eagle were sitting on the couch looking at something on her phone when he grabbed the back of her head, pushed her back, and tried to kiss her. She pushed him away and said she had a boyfriend. He put his knee on the couch and leaned over her and tried to kiss her again. She told him to stop and tried to back up, but the arm of the couch was behind her and gave her little room to do so. He continued to try to kiss her, and he moved her shorts and underwear aside and penetrated her with his finger. By that point, he was essentially on top of her with about six inches separating them. She told him to stop "countless times" and pushed his hand away. He persisted in trying to kiss her, pulled his pants down, adjusted her shorts and underwear more, and penetrated her with his penis. She continued to tell him "no" and "stop," but he ignored her pleas, eventually pulling out and ejaculating on her shorts. Doe indicated that she heard someone coming up the stairs, and Eagle got up.
Lindo entered the apartment, and Doe immediately fled to the bathroom. She had ejaculate all over her leg and wanted to take her shorts off as quickly as possible. She cleaned herself and changed into pajama pants. Lindo and Eagle were talking when she came out, and she raised her eyebrows at Lindo and gave him a "'[s]omething just happened'" look. She did not say anything to Lindo about the assault because Eagle was right there. She suffers from an anxiety disorder and panic attacks, and she could not bring herself to confront the situation. Doe did not call out for her father during the assault because his bedroom door was closed and he would not have woken up. After Lindo and Eagle left, she sent Lindo a message on Snapchat saying, "'Dude, you just saved me,'" but he did not read the message until a week later.
Doe immediately told her best friend about the assault. She did not immediately disclose the assault to anyone else because she did not want to be viewed as a victim, and she knew that rumors would spread. She eventually told her mother about the assault, and although Doe did not want to report it to the police, her family finally convinced her to do so a few weeks later.
When word of the assault spread, people called Doe a liar and a whore, and there was a rumor that she was pregnant. By the time she went to the police, girls were trying to "jump" her over it. One girl was sending her messages threatening to hurt her. Doe wanted the girl to stop messaging her, so Doe told the girl that she did not say that Eagle raped her.
A detective with the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department interviewed Eagle. Eagle's account of the events changed several times. At first, Eagle denied knowing Doe and said he had never been with her at her father's apartment. He then acknowledged that Doe had accused him of rape, but he said that she had also sent him Facebook messages claiming "that she did not say that." Eagle denied having sex with Doe and denied penetrating her with his finger. He said that he had never touched her. The detective often used a ruse in suspect interviews, and he did so in this case—he told Eagle that investigators had found Eagle's DNA on Doe. Eagle then said that Doe was modeling underwear for him and Lindo, Lindo and Doe's father left to smoke, and Doe was modeling underwear for him alone when "it was started consensually." She pulled him toward her and they kissed, and he touched her vaginal area but did not penetrate her with his finger. He did not expose his penis and was clothed at all times. She suddenly "said something about no my boyfriend," and Eagle "backed up." Lindo entered the apartment at that time.
The detective told Eagle that the lab results detected his DNA inside of Doe's vagina, and Eagle then said that he put half his finger inside her. He denied ejaculating on her. The detective said that his DNA was found on her leg the day after the assault (which was also a ruse). Eagle stated that they were "playing with each other," and he pulled his pants down, but she did not tell him to stop until after they were "already basically starting to . . . have sex." The detective accused Eagle of lying and told him to admit his "mistakes," or he would "go down as a cold-hearted rapist." The detective asked Eagle why he continued after Doe told him to stop, and he replied: "Because I, every time I do Xanax I make stupid fucking choices." Eagle stated that he stopped 20 to 30 seconds after she told him to stop. He wrote an apology letter to Doe at the detective's suggestion. The letter stated:
"I am truly sorry I did not stop when you had asked me to. I don't know what I was thinking. My mother had been raped, and now I have a little brother because of it. I am not that kind of person at all. I have made mistakes, as has anyone, but never did I think I would ever even have a chance at being involved in something like this.
"In a way I thank you for showing me who drugs really made me, and help reassure that I will never touch another drug in my life.
"I am so disappointed in myself and truly sorry for what happened that night. From the bottom of my heart, I apologize. From Tyler Eagle."
Lindo testified in Eagle's defense. On the day in question, several people were watching a movie in Lindo's bedroom. Doe and Eagle were sitting on Lindo's bed, and Doe was resting her legs on him. Later that night, Lindo went upstairs to talk to Doe's father. Doe let him into the apartment and knocked on her father's bedroom door. Her father opened the door, and he and Lindo talked in his bedroom for 10 minutes at the most. Lindo was leaving as Eagle arrived; Lindo returned to his apartment, but Eagle stayed. Lindo was in his apartment for no more than 10 minutes and tried calling both Doe and Eagle during that time. Neither of them answered, so Lindo went back upstairs. When he entered the upstairs apartment, Doe was lying on the sofa, and Eagle was on top of her. The apartment was dark, but it looked like they might have been kissing. They both jumped up quickly and looked for their cellular phones. Eagle pulled up his pants, which were sagging. Doe went to the bathroom and adjusted her shorts as she walked away. She did not indicate through her body language or facial expression that anything "bad" had happened. When she came out of the bathroom, she said, "Thank you." Lindo did not ask why she was thanking him.
There was nothing unusual about Doe's behavior, and the three of them sat and talked. Doe made some remarks about her body and clothes. It looked like she had not changed clothes in the bathroom and was still wearing the same spandex shorts, which were pulled up so that her "cheeks were hanging out." She told Lindo and Eagle to touch her buttocks and said, "See it's not that big." (Contrary to Lindo's testimony, Doe said that she never asked Lindo or Eagle to touch her buttocks.)
About a week after those events, Lindo asked Doe why she thanked him that night. She said that she was thanking him for "'coming in.'" A few days later, Lindo heard that Doe had accused Eagle of raping her.
Lindo had known Eagle since Eagle was an infant, but he would not lie to help Eagle. Doe was like a little sister to Lindo. He did not want to testify at trial and was uncomfortable doing so.
The jury found Eagle guilty of forcible rape and sexual penetration by a foreign object. (Pen. Code, §§ 261, subd. (a)(2), 289, subd. (a)(1); unlabeled statutory citations refer to this code.) As to both counts, the jury found true the allegation that Doe was under 18 years old.
II. Motion for New Trial and Sentencing
After trial, the court relieved Eagle's counsel and appointed new counsel. Eagle filed a motion for new trial arguing that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance for several reasons, including counsel's failure to present evidence of Facebook messages between Doe and Eagle. Eagle testified at the hearing on the new trial motion.
Doe initiated the first series of messages in the early morning hours after the assault (at 4:25 a.m.), but the two exchanged the majority of the messages later that day (at about 8:30 p.m.). The messages read as follows:
The Facebook messages between Eagle and Doe are replete with typographical errors, which we do not correct.
Doe: "Eh so i got a question
"Aye*"
Eagle: "Yes?"
Doe: "Y r u even tlkn 2 courtney, it don t make sense"
Eagle: "Why doesn't it make sense and she's my girl"
Doe: "Idk i just couldn't c u guys 2gether lmao and sorry i didnt mean 4 that 2 soumd rude lol"
Eagle: "Lol why can't you though"
Doe: "Just could never picture it in my head lol
"So u guys official now?"
Eagle: "As of today yea"
Doe: "Congrats"
Eagle: "Thank you"
Doe: "I hope u 2 r really happy 2gether lmao"
Eagle: "Thanks but didn't sound to honest"
Doe: "O, well i swear i was being genuine i just say 'lol' or 'lmao' alot its kinda a habit of mine, sorry 4 the confusion loves"
Eagle: "OK cool thank you"
Doe: "Np loves lol so how was the smash?
"(Image materials not available for display.)"
Eagle: "We didn't she was late on the deposit and got her period"
Doe: "Noooooooo!!!! Damn that blows im sorry" Eagle testified that "Idk" meant "I don't know," "lmao" meant "[l]aughing my ass off," "lol" meant "[l]augh out loud," and "smash" meant sexual intercourse.
Eagle initiated the second series of messages eight days later. Those messages read as follows:
Eagle: "Wtf why are you saying I raped you I have a kid and my mother was raped and had my little brother because of it dude that's not cool
"What if your boyfriend knew you walked out in underwear asking me and [Lindo] how they looked like wtf that's so burnt"
Doe: "I never said u did that js
"And he isnt my bf, he dumped me" Eagle testified that "Wtf" meant "what the fuck," and "js" meant "just saying."
Eagle stated that he told trial counsel about the Facebook messages numerous times before trial and requested that counsel use them. He directed his mother and friends to send the messages to trial counsel, and he waived time solely to allow counsel to subpoena the messages from Facebook. Trial counsel told Eagle that he never received the messages or could not get into contact with Eagle's friends or family. During trial, Eagle saw one of the messages in trial counsel's file. Counsel told Eagle that he did not intend to use them.
Trial counsel also testified at the hearing on the new trial motion. Counsel had been an attorney for over 30 years and had tried over 300 felony cases. Eagle told counsel about the Facebook messages. Counsel did not recall whether Eagle waived time specifically to subpoena the messages, but he spent "a lot of time trying to get access to the account to get the complete conversations." Counsel recalled the second series of messages, in which Eagle asked Doe why she was accusing him of rape. But he did not recall whether he had seen the first series of messages in which Doe asked about Eagle's girlfriend.
The court asked trial counsel why he did not use whatever messages he had in his possession. Counsel replied: "The victim, at one point, was indicating—I had information that she was threatened. She came in, indicating that she was threatened. She came in with the comfort dog. My concern about using that information is that the prosecution was gonna turn around and say that he was harassing and threatening her. And I felt that, under the circumstances, and the way that trial was going, that we were better off not bringing that. Because I did not want her to say that that was another form of him threatening her."
The court denied Eagle's new trial motion. It concluded that trial counsel had made a tactical decision not to use the Facebook messages "based on reason and his evaluation of the evidence"—namely, counsel's "concern that the use of the Facebook messages would make it appear like [Eagle] was attacking and victimizing [Doe]." The court found that counsel's decision was objectively reasonable. The court moreover concluded that Eagle did not suffer prejudice from counsel's decision not to use the messages, because Eagle confessed during his interview with law enforcement.
The court sentenced Eagle to nine years in prison, consisting of nine years for rape and a concurrent term of eight years for sexual penetration by a foreign object.
DISCUSSION
As in his new trial motion, Eagle argues that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to use the Facebook messages with Doe. We disagree.
A defendant claiming ineffective assistance of counsel "must show that counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness" and that counsel's deficient performance prejudiced the defendant. (Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 688, 691-692.) Prejudice means "a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different." (Id. at p. 694.) When the reason for counsel's actions appears in the record, we "will determine whether that reason reflects reasonably competent performance by an attorney acting as a conscientious and diligent advocate." (People v. Coddington (2000) 23 Cal.4th 529, 652, overruled on another ground by Price v. Superior Court (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1046, 1069, fn. 13.) "A court reviewing the conduct of counsel must in hindsight give great deference to counsel's tactical decisions." (People v. Holt (1997) 15 Cal.4th 619, 703.)
Where, as here, the defendant moved for a new trial on the basis of ineffective assistance, we uphold any factual findings supported by substantial evidence, but we independently review the ultimate question of whether the facts demonstrate ineffective assistance. (People v. Cervantes (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 569, 590-591, disapproved on another ground by People v. Superior Court (Lara) (2018) 4 Cal.5th 299, 315.)
In this case, trial counsel's conduct was reasonably competent. As counsel explained, he had a sound tactical reason for not using the conversation that occurred a week after the assault: He was concerned that the jury would perceive Eagle to be harassing and threatening Doe. Doe told the jurors that she suffered from panic attacks severe enough to cause a collapse, and she had to testify with a support person and a comfort dog. Third parties had threatened her with physical harm for accusing Eagle of rape. Counsel reasonably concluded that Eagle's angry message to Doe ("Wtf why are you saying I raped you") ran the risk of upsetting her and making Eagle appear threatening, which could have worked to Eagle's detriment.
Although counsel could not recall the other set of Facebook messages, a similar sound tactical reason could account for the decision not to question Doe about the messages regarding Eagle's girlfriend: Counsel did not want to be seen as victimizing and attacking Doe on the stand and risk further arousing sympathy for her. Indeed, his cross-examination of Doe bore out this strategy. The whole of it consisted of two and one-half pages. While counsel did not confront Doe on the stand, he focused his closing argument on attacking her credibility, particularly in light of Lindo's testimony, and he argued that her conduct was inconsistent with that of a rape victim. But a decision not to attack her face-to-face was reasonable, given her age and relative fragility at trial. (See People v. Arredondo (2019) 8 Cal.5th 694, 712 [minimizing trauma to sexual abuse victims while they testified provided a rational tactical reason for defense counsel's actions].)
In any event, the failure to use either set of messages did not prejudice Eagle, so his ineffective assistance claim lacks merit. Doe's message stating that she never said Eagle raped her was cumulative. Doe testified to the same effect when she explained that she wanted to stop a girl from threatening her, so she told the girl that she did not say that Eagle raped her. There is no reasonable probability that the cumulative Facebook message would have changed the result of the trial.
As to the other messages, even if counsel had introduced them, there is likewise no reasonable probability that Eagle would have obtained a more favorable result. Eagle overstates the messages' importance. He suggests that a likely inference from the messages is that Doe and Eagle engaged only in flirting and "consensual petting," and without the messages, the jurors could not have reached such a conclusion. But the record shows otherwise. In closing argument, trial counsel relied on other evidence supporting flirtation and consensual contact, such as Doe putting her legs on Eagle at Lindo's apartment, Doe giving him a "fashion show" and showing him her underwear, and Doe asking Eagle and Lindo to touch her buttocks. But the jury rejected the argument that there was a simple flirtation or that Doe consented, and it is not reasonably probable that the Facebook messages would have tipped the scale in Eagle's favor. Reasonable jurors could draw other inferences from the conversation, like that Doe was trying to ignore the traumatic experience and act as though everything were normal between her and Eagle. Jurors are sophisticated enough to understand that rape victims may have complicated postassault reactions.
More importantly, between Doe's testimony, Eagle's statements to law enforcement, and his apology letter, the evidence against Eagle was strong. Eagle started his interview with law enforcement by denying that he knew Doe. He gradually admitted to "basically" having sex with her and ignoring her plea to stop for 20 to 30 seconds, and his letter to her apologized for not stopping. While he attempted to minimize his conduct, his own statements essentially corroborated Doe's account.
In sum, trial counsel did not perform deficiently by failing to use the Facebook messages, but even assuming that he did, the deficient performance did not prejudice Eagle.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
MENETREZ
J. We concur: McKINSTER
Acting P. J. SLOUGH
J.