Spires v. Ryan et al
Filing
14
ORDER the Report and Recommendation filed May 31, 2013 is adopted in its entirety, and the Petition for Habeas Corpus is DENIED and DISMISSED with prejudice. The Clerk of Court shall enter a final judgment accordingly. FURTHER ORDERED that a Certific ate of Appealability shall not be issued by this Court. This Court finds that Mr. Spires has not made the requisite "substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right" specified in 28 U.S.C. §2253(c)(2). Any request for a Certificate of Appealability must be addressed to the Court of Appeals. Signed by Judge Sharon L Gleason on 8/26/2013. (KMG)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
CHARLES ALLEN SPIRES,
Petitioner,
v.
CHARLES L. RYAN, et al.
Respondents.
Case No. 2:12-CV-01823-PHX-SLG
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS
Before the Court is a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2254 by petitioner Charles Allen Spires. 1 The Petition was referred to a United
States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) who issued a Report and
Recommendation that recommends the denial of the Petition.
BACKGROUND
On January 18, 2005, Mr. Spires was indicted by a grand jury in Maricopa
County Superior Court on several counts of molestation of a child, sexual conduct with a
minor, and public sexual indecency. Prior to trial, he filed a motion to dismiss the
indictment, arguing that the charges were not properly brought within the applicable
1
Docket 1 (Pet.).
statute of limitations. Although the trial court granted that motion, on appeal the Arizona
Court of Appeals reversed and remanded.
Thereafter, on June 24, 2008, Mr. Spires pled guilty to two counts of attempted
child molestation, class 3 felonies and dangerous crimes against children in the second
degree; and one count of sexual conduct with a minor, a class 2 felony and dangerous
crime against children in the first degree. 2 On September 10, 2008, Mr. Spires was
sentenced to a term of 25 years of imprisonment and two concurrent terms of 5 years of
probation. 3
On June 29, 2009, Mr. Spires filed a Pro Per Petition for Post-Conviction Relief
after he was informed by appointed counsel that counsel could not find any claims for
relief to raise on his behalf. 4 The Petition asserted that (1) the Superior Court “erred
when it misapplied the law by using an incorrect legal standard in finding the charges
. . . were not time-barred and violated Spires’ constitutional rights in doing so,” and (2)
the Superior Court “erred when it sentenced Defendant Charles Spires under A.R.S. §
13-604.01” without providing notice of the elements of the enhancement, in violation of
his due process rights. 5
On January 26, 2010, the Superior Court issued a ruling that rejected Mr. Spires’
claims and denying post-conviction relief. 6
Mr. Spires appealed that ruling; on
2
Docket 10-2 at 97 (Ex. Y: Plea Agreement).
3
Docket 10-2 at 27-28 (Ex. U: Sentencing Hearing Notes).
4
Docket 10-2 at 75 (Ex. Y: Pro Per Petition).
5
Docket 10-2 at 76, 86 (Ex. Y: Pro Per Petition).
6
Docket 10-2 at 129, 131 (Ex. BB: Ruling on PCR).
2:12-cv-01823-PHX-SLG, Spires v. Ryan
Order Denying Petition for Habeas Corpus
Page 2 of 6
November 20, 2011, the Arizona Court of Appeals summarily denied review. 7
Mr.
Spires did not seek review of that decision by the Arizona Supreme Court. 8
Mr. Spires filed this habeas petition on August 29, 2012. 9 In the petition, Mr.
Spires asserts two grounds for relief: (1) that the Superior Court’s rulings on the statute
of limitations were “contrary to clearly established law,” in violation of his due process
and equal protection rights, and (2) that he was “never given notice of the true nature
and cause that made his charges Dangerous Crimes Against children and was never
told what element must be found within the plea agreement by the Trial Court to
establish this designation” in violation of his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to
notice and due process. 10 Respondents filed an Answer on December 13, 2012. 11
On May 31, 2013, the Magistrate Judge filed his Report and Recommendation
and recommended that the Petition be denied and dismissed with prejudice. 12
Specifically, the Magistrate Judge concluded that regarding Mr. Spires’ statute of
limitations argument, “[a]ny challenge to whether the State complied with A.R.S. § 13107 is a question of state law and is not cognizable on federal habeas review.” 13
Moreover, “[e]ven were the Court to find this claim cognizable on federal habeas review,
7
Docket 10-2 at 134 (Ex. CC: Petition for Review); Docket 10-2 at 152 (Ex. DD: Court of
Appeals Order).
8
Docket 1 at 3, 5 (Pet.).
9
Docket 1.
10
Docket 1 at 6-8.
11
Docket 10 (Answer).
12
Docket 11 at 17 (R&R).
13
Docket 11 at 10.
2:12-cv-01823-PHX-SLG, Spires v. Ryan
Order Denying Petition for Habeas Corpus
Page 3 of 6
Petitioner has not established that the state courts’ holdings were . . . contrary to clearly
established federal law, . . . involve[d] an unreasonable application of federal law, or
were . . . based on an unreasonable determination of the facts.” 14 The Magistrate
Judge also concluded that “the indictment apprised Petitioner of the factors which would
enhance his sentence with sufficient clarity.” 15 Plus, “[b]oth the plea agreement and the
Superior Court at the plea hearing described the offenses as dangerous crimes against
children.” 16 Thus, “Petitioner’s plea comported with due process standards, and there is
nothing in the record to overcome the presumption that he pleaded voluntarily,
knowingly, and intelligently.” 17
Mr. Spires filed his objections to the Magistrate Judge’s report on June 14,
2013. 18
There, Mr. Spires contests the veracity of several facts included in the
Magistrate Judge’s report, which had been directly quoted from the earlier decision of
the Arizona Court of Appeals. He appended a 1992 police report.19 No response to the
objections was filed by Respondents.
14
Docket 11 at 10.
15
Docket 11 at 14.
16
Docket 11 at 16.
17
Docket 11 at 16.
18
Docket 12 (R&R Objections).
19
Docket 12 at 1-2. These factual challenges are not solely aimed at the background facts as
summarized in the Magistrate Judge’s report, but also assert the Arizona Attorney General
misstated facts and ignored the 1992 Police Report, and that a detective involved in the
investigation of this case lied on the witness stand and otherwise mishandled the investigation.
Docket 12 at 1-2. As all these contentions are not the basis for the legal recommendations of
the Magistrate Judge, they are not appropriate for consideration in this habeas petition.
2:12-cv-01823-PHX-SLG, Spires v. Ryan
Order Denying Petition for Habeas Corpus
Page 4 of 6
DISCUSSION
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court “may
accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by
the magistrate judge.”20 However, the Court must only “make a de novo determination
of those portions of the [magistrate judge's] report or specified proposed findings or
recommendations to which objection is made.” 21 Thus, “[n]either the Constitution nor
the statute requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations
that the parties themselves accept as correct.” 22
This Court has reviewed the record in this case together with the Petitioner’s
objections and the 1992 police report appended thereto, and agrees with the Magistrate
Judge’s determination as set forth in the Report and Recommendation. The claims
raised by Mr. Spires are either not cognizable in a federal habeas action or fail on the
merits.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The Report and Recommendation filed May 31, 2013 is adopted in its entirety,
and the Petition for Habeas Corpus is DENIED and DISMISSED with prejudice.
2. The Clerk of Court shall enter a final judgment accordingly.
20
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
21
U.S. v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C))
(emphasis omitted).
22
Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121.
2:12-cv-01823-PHX-SLG, Spires v. Ryan
Order Denying Petition for Habeas Corpus
Page 5 of 6
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a Certificate of Appealability shall not be issued
by this Court. 23 This Court finds that Mr. Spires has not made the requisite “substantial
showing of the denial of a constitutional right” specified in 28 U.S.C. §2253(c)(2). Any
request for a Certificate of Appealability must be addressed to the Court of Appeals. 24
DATED this 26th day of August, 2013.
/s/ Sharon L. Gleason
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
23
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (a Certificate of
Appealability may be granted only if the applicant has made “a substantial showing of the denial
of a constitutional right,” i.e., when “reasonable jurists could debate whether . . . the petition
should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were adequate to
deserve encouragement to proceed further.”) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
24
Fed. R. App. P. 22(b); Ninth Circuit R. 22-1.
2:12-cv-01823-PHX-SLG, Spires v. Ryan
Order Denying Petition for Habeas Corpus
Page 6 of 6
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?