Cygnus Systems, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation, et al

Filing 258

Download PDF
Cygnus Systems, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation, et al D o c . 258 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NATASHA WRAE A tto r n e y At Law P.O. BOX 3026 TUCSON, AZ 85702 TELEPHONE (520) 624-4224 Attorney for Phillip Smith ASPC-Eyman SMU I Florence, AZ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DISTRICT OF ARIZONA ) Phillip Alden Smith (ADC # 56505), No. ) ) Petitioner/Appellant, Arizona Supreme Court No.: ) CR-05-0297-PR ) vs. Arizona Court of Appeals, Div. 1 No.: ) 1 CA-CR 04-0235 PRPC ) Robert Stewart (Warden, ASPC-Eyman) ) Maricopa County Case No.: CR 1996-012436 ) and Terry Goddard (Arizona Attorney ) PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS ) General), CORPUS UNDER 28 U.S.C. 2254 ) ) Respondent/Appellee. ) (First Amended Petition) ) ) ) P e titio n e r / A p p e lla n t, Philip A. Smith, by and through counsel undersigned, h e re b y respectfully petitions this Honorable Court to review the unconstitutional ju d g m e n ts of the courts of the State of Arizona pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 13 th day of March , 2007, N ATASHA WRAE, ESQ. /s/ Natasha W ra e Natasha W ra e A t to rn e y for Petitioner Dockets.Justia.com 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 28 P E T IT IO N 1. (a) Name and location of court that entered the judgment of conviction being c h a lle n g e d : Arizona Superior Court in and for Maricopa County CR 1996-012436 (b) Criminal case number: 2. (a) Date of judgment of conviction: (b) Date of sentencing: April 3, 1997 May 30, 1997 3. Length of sentence: aggravated term of 25 years as to Count 2 and lifetime p ro b a tio n following the term of incarceration on Count 4 4. In this case, Petitioner was convicted on more than one count. 5. Petitioner was convicted and sentenced on the following crimes: Count 2, S e x u a l Conduct with a Minor, a class 2 felony and dangerous crime against c h ild r e n in the first degree and amended Count 4, attempted Sexual Conduct w ith a Minor, a class 3 felony and dangerous crime against children in the s e c o n d degree 6. (a) Petitioner plead guilty to the crimes listed in number 5, supra. (b) Petitioner plead not guilty to the following charges: Counts 1 & 3, M o le s ta tio n of a Child, class 2 felonies and dangerous crimes against children in the first degree. 7. Petitioner testified at the change of plea and the sentencing in this matter. 2 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 28 8 -9 . Petitioner was not entitled to take a direct appeal due to the fact that he e n te re d into the plea agreement. 10. Petitioner filed a Notice of Post-conviction Relief pursuant to Rule 32 of the A r iz o n a Rules of Criminal Procedure. 11. (a )(1 ) Name of Court: (2) Case Number: Maricopa County Superior Court of Arizona CR 96-12436 (3) Date of filing: On July 15, 1997, Petitioner executed and had notarized a n Affidavit of Indigency. The Affidavit of Indigency was attached to and p ro m p tly mailed with Petitioner's original Notice of Post-conviction Relief. F o r reasons unknown, this Notice was not filed by the trial court until F e b ru a ry 24, 1998. (4) Nature of the proceeding: Rule 32 Notice of Post-conviction Relief (5) Grounds raised: No grounds for relief were ever presented since the o n ly document filed was a Notice of Post-conviction Relief. Petitioner never h a d an opportunity to present any grounds for relief before the Rule 32 P e titio n was summarily dismissed as untimely mere weeks after its filing. (6) No hearing was conducted on this petition. (7) Result: Summary dismissal by the Hon. Ronald S. Reinstein March 9, 1998 (8) Date of dismissal: (b) Subsequent relief efforts: (1) Name of Court: (2) Case Number: (3) Date of filing: Maricopa County Superior Court of Arizona CR 96-12436 February 25, 2004 (4) Nature of the proceeding: Rule 32 Notice of Post-conviction Relief 3 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 28 (5) Grounds raised: 1.) No fault of Defendant's for Filing Untimely Notice, 2 .) Significant Change in the Law- Illegal Sentence, 3.) Significant Change in th e Law- Cruel and Unusual Punishment. (6) No hearing was conducted on this petition. (7) Result: Summary dismissal by the Honorable Eddward Ballinger, Jr. March 18, 2004 (8) Date of dismissal: ( c) A third petition was not filed. (d ) (1) Petitioner did not appeal to the highest state court on the first petition. (2) Petitioner did appeal to the highest state court on the second petition. (e ) (1) W ith respect to the first petition that was summarily dismissed, P e titio n e r did not pursue further appellate relief believing that the Court was c o rre c t in summarily dismissing the matter for being untimely. Further re s e a rc h revealing newly discovered material facts, a significant change in the la w and that Petitioner's "untimely" filing was forgiveable if it was without fault o f Petitioner's prompted the subsequent filing in 2004. 12. Petitioner asserts the following grounds in this Petition: G R O U N D ONE: Imposition of illegal life-time term of probation is cruel and u n u s u a l punishment pursuant to the Eigth Amendment of the United States C o n s t it u t io n . (a). Supporting facts: Petitioner plead guilty to amended Count 4, Attempted S e x u a l Conduct with a Minor, a class 3 felony and dangerous crime against children in the second degree, nondangerous and nonrepetitive offense in violation of A.R.S. 13-1405. Petitioner was sentenced on May 30, 1997. Under the plea, Petitioner w a s to be sentenced to lifetime probation for this offense. At the time of commission o f the offense, November 17, 1996, section 13-902(E) did not permit lifetime p ro b a tio n for convictions for "attempted" offenses. This section was amended by the 4 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 28 F o rty-t h ir d Legislature effective July 21, 1997 to include attempted offenses.. T h e re fo re the maximum term of probation that Petitioner should have received was 5 years. (b) Petitioner requested review of this issue at all available levels in the state c o u r ts . ( c) Direct Appeal of Ground One: Petitioner entered into a plea agreement th e re fo re , direct appeal was not an option. (d ) Post-Conviction Proceedings: Petitioner attempted to raise this issue in a p o s t-c o n vic tio n motion in a Rule 32 Notice of Post-conviction Relief filed in the S u p e r io r Court of Arizona in and for Maricopa County under case number CR-19961 2 4 3 6 . No hearing was conducted on this petition and the petition was summarily d is m is s e d by the Hon. Eddward Ballinger, Jr. on March18, 2004. Petitioner then a p p e a le d the issue to Division One of the Court of Appeals of Arizona in a Petition fo r Review with case number 1 CA-CR 04-0235 PRPC. The Court of Appeals d e n ie d review on May 26, 2005. Petitioner then filed a Petition for Review requesting th a t the Arizona Supreme Court order that the issue be reviewed by the lower courts. T h e Arizona Supreme Court denied review on March 9, 2006. GROUND TW O : Petitioner's Fourteenth Amendment right to due process was vio la te d when the state courts summarily denied his opportunity to raise the issue in Ground One, supra. (a). Supporting facts: In the Notice of Post-conviction Relief filed on F e b ru a ry 25, 2004, Petitioner set forth claims for relief under Rule 32.1 (e), (f) and (g ). Petitioner stated the requisite meritorious reasons substantiating the claims and 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 in d ic a tin g why the claims were not stated in the previous Notice of Post-conviction R e lie f or in a timely manner pursuant to Rule 32.2(b). The trial court summarily d is m is s e d the Notice of Post-Conviction Relief on March18, 2004 stating the fo llo w in g : D e fe n d a n t claims that he should be excused from the tim e lin e s s requirement of Rule 32.4(a), Arizona Rules of C rim in a l Procedure, because he believed his trial attorney w a s filing the notice for him. Defendant raised this claim in a prior notice. The court found that defendant had failed to show that the failure to timely file the notice was without f a u lt on his part, as required by Rule 32.1(f), and s u m m a rily dismissed the proceeding on March 9, 1998. T h is court agrees with that ruling A review of the March 18, 2004 Minute Entry clearly shows that the trial court 11 d id not conduct the requisite three part test prior to summarily dismissing the Notice 12 o f Post-conviction Relief. Petitions for Post-Conviction Relief are permitted after the 13 o rig in a l time for filing have expired when claims for relief based on Rule 32.1(d), (e), 14 (f), (g) and (h) are raised. Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b). W h e n an excepted claim is 15 ra is e d in a successive or untimely petition for post-conviction relief, the notice of 16 p o s t-c o n vic tio n relief must set forth the substance of the specific exception and the 17 re a s o n s for not raising the claim in the previous petition or in a timely manner. Id. 18 I t is only "[i]f the specific exception and meritorious reasons do not appear 19 s u b s ta n tia tin g the claim and indicating why the claim was not stated in the previous 20 p e titio n or in a timely manner, [that] the notice shall be summarily dismissed." Id. 21 T h e court must identify all precluded claims, determine that no remaining claims 22 p re s e n t a material issue of fact or law that would entitle the defendant to relief under 23 R u le 32 and that no purpose would be served by any further proceedings before 24 o rd e rin g the petition dismissed. Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.6 ( c ). The court's analysis 25 u n d e r Rule 32.6( c ) is a three part test. Clearly, the trial court did not (1.) identify all 26 p re c lu d e d claims, (2.) make a determination that no remaining claims presented 27 m a te ria l issues of fact or law which would entitle the defendant to relief under Rule 28 6 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 28 3 2 , and (3.) make a determination that no purpose would be served by any further p ro c e e d in g s . Additionally, a finding that the original Notice of Post-conviction Relief was u n tim e ly should have no bearing on the analysis of the excepted "late" issues raised in the subsequent Notice. Given that there exists significant changes in the law and th a t newly discovered material facts that would change the sentence had been d is c o ve re d since the filing of the original Notice, the newly presented, meritorius is s u e s were not precluded pursuant to Rule 32.2 (a). Furthermore, a claim asserting R u le 32.1 (g) regarding significant changes in the law "encompasses all claims for re tro a c tive application of new constitutional and nonconstitutional legal principles." A riz .R . Crim.P. 32.1 Comment. (b) Petitioner requested review of this issue at all available levels in the state c o u r ts . ( c) Direct Appeal of Ground Two: Petitioner entered into a plea agreement th e re fo re , direct appeal was not an option. (d ) Post-Conviction Proceedings: Petitioner attempted to raise the issue set fo rth in Ground One, supra, in a post-conviction motion in a Rule 32 Notice of Postc o n vic tio n Relief filed in the Superior Court of Arizona in and for Maricopa County u n d e r case number CR-1996-12436. No hearing was conducted on this petition and t h e petition was summarily dismissed by the Hon. Eddward Ballinger, Jr. on M a rc h 1 8 , 2004. Petitioner then appealed the issue to Division One of the Court of A p p e a ls of Arizona in a Petition for Review with case number 1 CA-CR 04-0235 P R P C . The Court of Appeals denied review on May 26, 2005. Petitioner then filed a Petition for Review requesting that the Arizona Supreme Court order that the issue 7 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 28 b e reviewed by the lower courts. The Arizona Supreme Court denied review on M a rc h 9, 2006. 13. (a) All grounds for relief that are raised herein have been presented to the h ig h e s t state court having jurisdiction. (b ) There are no grounds in this petition that have not been presented in some s ta te or federal court. 1 4 . Petitioner has never filed any type of petition, application or motion in a federal c o u rt regarding the conviction that he is challenging herein. 1 5 . Petitioner has no petitions or appeals pending in any court, state or federal, for th e judgment being challenged herein. 1 6 . Attorneys representing Petitioner at the different stages of the case: (a ) At preliminary hearing: (b) At arraignment and plea: P h o e n ix , AZ 85003-2302 (c) At trial: John Movroydis John Movroydis N/A Pro per U/K John Movroydis; 11 W e s t Jefferson, Suite 5, (d) At sentencing; (e) On appeal: (f) In any post-conviction proceeding: (g) On appeal from any ruling against Petitioner in a post-conviction p ro c e e d in g : Natasha W ra e ; 100 North Stone, Suite 512, Tucson, AZ 85701 1 7 . Petitioner has no future sentences to serve after he completes the sentence for th e judgement challenged herein. 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1 8 . This Petition is timely since the Supreme Court of Arizona denied Petitioner's P e titio n for Review on March 9, 2006. For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner, by and through counsel undersigned, h e re b y respectfully Petitions this Honorable Court to review the actions of the state c o u rts , find that the state courts denied Petitioner due process of law by summarily d is m is s in g the Notice of Post-Conviction Relief filed February 25, 2004, and in so d o in g , subject Petitioner to illegal and unconstitutional period of probation. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 13 th day of March , 2007, N ATASHA WRAE, ESQ. /s/ Natasha W ra e Natasha W ra e A t to rn e y for Petitioner I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 11/03/06 Executed Date /s/ Phillip Alden Smith P h illip Alden Smith P e t itio n e r 9 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 28 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the 13th day of March , 2007, I caused to be served the original and two (2) copies of the foregoing Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus via hand delivery/mail to : I further certify that two (2) copies of the foregoing Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus were hand delivered/mailed this 13th day of to: Arizona Attorney General Attn: Randall M. Howe 1275 W. Washington Phoenix, AZ 85007 Maricopa County Attorney Attn: Criminal Appeals 301 W. Jefferson, 8th Floor March , 2007, DATED this 13th day of March , 2007 /s/ Natasha Wrae NATASHA WRAE C : \ D o c u m e n ts and Settings\S e c t\ D e s k t o p \S m i t h Petition for W r i t of H C . w p d 10

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?