Johnson v. Ryan et al

Filing 24

ORDER overruling Petitioner's objections to the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. ORDER adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. ORDER that Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is denied. ORDER that a certificate of appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is denied. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 12/20/11. (TLJ)

1

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

2
3
4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

6
7

Robert Earl Johnson,

8

Petitioner,

9

vs.

10
Charles Ryan, et al.,
11
Respondents.
12

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CV11-0780-PHX-SRB
ORDER

13
14
Petitioner filed a timely Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus asserting two claims. In
15
Ground One, Petitioner argues that he was improperly sentenced in state court pursuant to
16
A.R.S. § 13-604(A) and (B), when he should have been sentenced pursuant to A.R.S. § 1317
702.02. Petitioner claims this sentencing error violates the Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth
18
Amendments to the United States Constitution. In Ground Two, Petitioner argues that he
19
received illegal sentences in state court in violation of the Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth
20
Amendments because the prior felony conviction used to enhance his sentence did not
21
qualify as a historical prior felony conviction under Arizona law. Respondents filed an
22
answer. Petitioner replied.
23
The Magistrate Judge issued his Report and Recommendation on October 24, 2011
24
recommending that the Petition be denied because Petitioner argued that his sentences were
25
imposed in violation of Arizona law and such state law claims are not cognizable on federal
26
habeas corpus review. The Magistrate Judge also concluded that Petitioner's reference to the
27
Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution do not transform
28

1

his state law claims into federal ones. Petitioner filed timely objections to the Report and

2

Recommendation on November 7, 2011, arguing that his two issues are cognizable on federal

3

habeas review and claiming that his custody is in violation of the United States Constitution

4

because he was denied procedural and substantive due process of law under the Fifth and

5

Fourteenth Amendment, was subjected to cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth

6

Amendment, and was denied fair sentencing under the Sixth Amendment. Respondents filed

7

a response to Petitioner's objections agreeing with the analysis of the Magistrate Judge in his

8

Report and Recommendation.

9

This Court also agrees with the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation.

10

Petitioner raised only state law claims related to sentencing in his federal habeas petition. His

11

references to the Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

12

cannot transform these claims into federal ones as noted by the Magistrate Judge. Similarly,

13

his citations to the Sixth and Eighth Amendments to the United States Constitution in his

14

objections also do not transform his state law based sentencing claims into federal claims.

15

IT IS ORDERED overruling Petitioner's objections to the Report and

16
17
18
19
20

Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge as the Order of this Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is
denied.

21

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability and leave to proceed

22

in forma pauperis on appeal is denied because Petitioner has not made a substantial showing

23

of the denial of a constitutional right.

24

DATED this 20th day of December, 2011.

25
26
27
28
-2-