Jones v. Ryan et al
Filing
14
ORDER ADOPTING 12 Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge as the Order of this Court. Petitioner's Writ of Habeas Corpus is denied. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying a Certificate of Appealability because Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 6/27/14. (LSP)
1
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9
D. Ryan Jones,
No. CV-13-00813-PHX-SRB
Petitioner,
10
11
v.
12
ORDER
Charles L. Ryan, et al.,
13
Respondents.
14
15
Petitioner, D. Ryan Jones, filed his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus raising two
16
claims; 1) ineffective assistance of counsel; and 2) a due process violation when his
17
sentence was enhanced without a factual basis. Petitioner’s claim of ineffective assistance
18
of counsel raised two arguments. He argued that counsel were ineffective in failing to
19
investigate the alleged likelihood he suffers from Asperger’s Syndrome and in failing to
20
investigate his difficult childhood. Petitioner’s claimed due process violation was an
21
alleged illegal enhancement of his sentences without a factual basis that his conduct was
22
“focused on, directed against, aimed at, or target[ed] a victim under the age of fifteen or
23
required under the state’s sentencing statute.”
24
The Magistrate Judge filed her Report and Recommendation recommending that
25
the Petition be denied. She found no ineffective assistance regarding the alleged
26
likelihood of Asperger’s Syndrome because, even if there were some deficiency in
27
counsel’s investigation, Petitioner had not shown prejudice because his assertion of
28
Asperger’s Syndrome is speculative and he identified no evidence counsel would have
1
discovered with further investigation. Therefore, Petitioner failed to show the state
2
court’s resolution of this claim was contrary to or based on an unreasonable application
3
of federal law or an unreasonable determination of the facts. The Magistrate Judge also
4
found counsel were not ineffective for failing to investigate and present evidence of his
5
traumatic childhood because Petitioner failed to identify any further mitigation
6
information counsel might have uncovered with additional investigation. Therefore, the
7
Petitioner failed to show that the state court’s denial of this claim of ineffective assistance
8
of counsel was contrary to or based on an unreasonable application of federal law or
9
based on unreasonable determination of the facts.
10
On Petitioner’s claim of a due process violation at sentencing, the Magistrate
11
Judge found that, even if there was error any error was harmless because the error did not
12
have a substantial injurious effect or influence on the sentences because the record
13
contained sufficient evidence to support factual findings for the applicability of the
14
sentencing enhancement.
15
Finally, the Magistrate Judge recommended denial of a Certificate of
16
Appealability because Petitioner made no substantial showing of the denial of a
17
constitutional right.
18
Petitioner’s timely Objections to Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation raise
19
only two objections. Petitioner argues that the Magistrate Judge erred in concluding that
20
the state Court of Appeals had applied to the Strickland standard to Petitioner’s
21
ineffective assistance of counsel claims and in finding that he failed to make a substantial
22
showing of the denial of a constitutional right allowing a Certificate of Appealability.
23
The Court will overrule the objections because on de novo review of the record the
24
Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the state appellate court applied the correct
25
standard for ineffective assistance and that Petitioner has failed to make a substantial
26
showing of the denial of his constitutional rights.
27
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984), requires a petitioner to show
28
that counsel’s performance was objectively deficient and that deficient performance
-2-
1
prejudiced the petitioner. In addressing Petitioner’s claims of ineffective assistance of
2
counsel the state Court of Appeals expressed the standard as follows: “Generally, ‘[t]o
3
state a colorable claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show both
4
that counsel’s performance fell below objectively reasonable standards and that this
5
deficiency prejudiced the defendant.’ State v. Bennett, 213 Ariz. 562, ¶21, 146 P.3d 63,
6
68 (2006).” (Doc. 9, Resp’t Answer to Pet. for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Ex. L)
7
While the state court cited the Arizona Supreme Court’s decision in State v.
8
Bennett for the standard rather than Strickland, this is the Strickland standard as
9
recognized by the Arizona Supreme Court in Bennett.
10
11
12
13
To state a colorable claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant
must show both that counsel’s performance fell below objectively
reasonable standards and that this deficiency prejudiced the defendant.
Strickland, 466 U.S at 687, 104 S.Ct 2052. Failure to satisfy either prong
of the Strickland test is fatal to an ineffective assistance of counsel claim.
Id.; State v. Salazar, 146 Ariz. 540, 541, 707 P.2d 944, 945 (1985).
14
State v. Bennett, 213 Ariz. 562 § 21, 146 P.2d 63, 68 (2006). Because the Arizona court
15
applied the proper standard, Petitioner’s objection is without merit and he has also failed
16
to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.
17
18
19
20
IT IS ORDERED overruling Petitioner’s Objections to Magistrate’s Report and
Recommendation. (Doc. 13)
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge as the Order of this Court. (Doc. 12)
21
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Petitioner’s Writ of Habeas Corpus.
22
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying a Certificate of Appealability because
23
24
Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.
Dated this 27th day of June, 2014.
25
26
27
28
-3-
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?