Pineda-Salgado v. Blair et al
Filing
22
ORDER overruling the objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. ORDER adopting the Report and Recommendation as the order of this Court. ORDER that the Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is dismissed with prejudice. ORDER that a certificate of appealability be denied because jurists of reason would not find it debatable whether this Court was correct in its procedural ruling. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 6/30/11. (TLJ)
1
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9
Eduardo Pineda-Salgado,
Petitioner,
10
11
vs.
12
Unknown Blair, et al.,
13
Respondents,
14
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. CV10-0775-PHX-SRB
ORDER
15
16
17
Petitioner Eduardo Pineda-Salgado filed an Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas
18
Corpus raising two grounds for relief. Petitioner asserts that his Sixth Amendment and Due
19
Process Rights were violated when the trial court failed to instruct the jury on the lesser
20
included offense of theft. Petitioner also argues that his Sixth Amendment Rights were
21
violated because the trial court sentenced him to an aggravated term of imprisonment. The
22
Respondents responded in opposition to the Petition asserting that Petitioner's claims were
23
procedurally defaulted and that they were without merit. Petitioner filed a reply in support
24
of his Petition.
25
On May 18, 2011, the Magistrate Judge issued his Report and Recommendation
26
recommending to this Court that the Petition be dismissed with prejudice because Petitioner
27
failed to exhaust his state remedies, failed to show any excuse for his procedural defaults, and
28
did not assert an actual innocence claim.
1
Petitioner filed timely written objections to the Report and Recommendation to which
2
Respondents filed a written response. Petitioner objects to the Magistrate Judge's conclusion
3
that he failed to properly exhaust his claims by failing to raise them as constitutional claims
4
before the state court. He argues that because he quoted from a federal authority and cited
5
to the state court decision in State v. Wall, 212 Ariz. 1, 126 P.3d 148 (2006), these citations
6
were sufficient to the put the Arizona courts on notice that he was raising a federal claim.
7
He also asserts that because he mentioned the protection of his due process rights in his
8
Petition for Review to the Arizona Supreme Court on his direct appeal that he did include an
9
assertion that the failure to instruct on the lesser included offense was a federal constitutional
10
claim. Finally, Petitioner argues that he did not knowingly and intelligently waive any
11
claims in his Petition for Post-Conviction Relief proceedings in the state court because his
12
lawyer didn't inform him and his lack of knowledge amounted to ineffective assistance by
13
his counsel. Finally, the objection contains the statement, "A constitutional violation has
14
resulted in the conviction of one who is actual innocent."
15
The response to the objections notes, as did the Magistrate Judge, that the presentation
16
of the claim for failure to instruct on the lesser included offense of theft was presented to the
17
state court as a state claim. The mere references to a federal case and to a state case that cites
18
that federal case were insufficient to alert the state appellate court that Petitioner was raising
19
a federal due process claim. Respondents also note, as did the Magistrate Judge, that the
20
mere reference to "due process" in the Petition for Review to the Arizona Supreme Court
21
cannot constitute a proper exhaustion of a federal claim based on its failure to say whether
22
the reference was to the federal or state constitution and because proper exhaustion requires
23
it to be raised at every level of review and not for the first time on Petition for Review to the
24
Arizona Supreme Court. The response also notes that with respect to Petitioner's claim that
25
ineffective assistance of counsel was the cause of his procedural default, that claim must be
26
fairly presented to the state court in order to satisfy the requirements for exhaustion.
27
Edwards v. Carpenter, 529 U.S. 446, 453 (2000). Petitioner made no assertion of ineffective
28
assistance of counsel in the Arizona courts and cannot raise it for the first time here. Finally,
-2-
1
the response notes that a claim of actual innocence without more does not meet the
2
Petitioner's burden of establishing actual innocence to excuse procedural default.
3
After a de novo review of the record in this case, the Magistrate Judge's Report and
4
Recommendations, the objections and the response to the objections, the Court finds itself
5
in agreement with the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge in this case. The
6
Court finds that Petitioner has procedurally defaulted both his claim that his federal
7
constitutional rights were violated by the trial court's failure to give a jury instruction on a
8
lesser included offense and that his federal constitutional rights under Apprendi v. New
9
Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) were violated by his sentence. Neither claim was fairly
10
presented to the state court as a federal claim. With respect to the sentencing claim, Petitioner
11
failed to seek review of the trial court's denial of his Petition for Post-Conviction Relief with
12
the Arizona Court of Appeals. Finally, no showing of cause and prejudice has been made
13
or is even alleged to have been made by Petitioner. Petitioner's bare assertion that he is
14
actually innocent is insufficient to avoid the procedural default. Because Plaintiff can no
15
longer return to state court to attempt to exhaust, the Petition must be dismissed with
16
prejudice.
17
18
IT IS ORDERED overruling the objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation.
19
20
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation as the order
of this Court.
21
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
22
is dismissed with prejudice.
23
///
24
///
25
///
26
///
27
///
28
///
-3-
1
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability be denied because
2
jurists of reason would not find it debatable whether this Court was correct in its procedural
3
ruling.
4
5
DATED this 30th day of June, 2011.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4-
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?