Karban #234332 v. Ryan et al

Filing 52

ORDER - IT IS ORDERED overruling Petitioner's Objections to the Report andRecommendation of Magistrate Judge. IT IS ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge as the Order of this Court. (Doc. 47 ) IT IS FURTHER ORDE RED that Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is denied and dismissed with prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner's Request to Supplement the Record of his Writ of Habeas Corpus is denied. (Doc. 44 ) IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying a Certificate of Appealability because denial of the Petition is justified by a plain procedural bar and jurist of reason would not find the ruling debatable and because Petitioner has failed to show the denial of a federal constitutional right. (See document for further details). Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 8/11/17. (LAD)

1

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Stephen Frank Karban,
Petitioner,

10
11

ORDER

v.

12

No. CV-14-02763-PHX-SRB

Charles L Ryan, et al.,

13

Respondents.

14
15

Petitioner Stephen Karban was convicted in Maricopa County Superior Court of

16

11 felonies after representing himself with advisory counsel in a jury trial. He was

17

sentenced to 138.5 years in prison. Petitioner was represented by counsel on appeal and

18

his counsel raised four issues before the Arizona Court of Appeals. The Arizona Court of

19

Appeals affirmed his convictions and sentence and the Arizona Supreme Court denied

20

review. Thereafter, Petitioner filed a timely Petition for Post-Conviction Relief raising 12

21

grounds for relief. The Petition for Post-Conviction Relief was denied. Petitioner

22

appealed the denial and the Court of Appeals denied relief.

23

Petitioner then filed this Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus raising 29 claims of

24

violation of his federal constitutional rights. After full briefing the Magistrate Judge

25

issued her Report and Recommendation recommending that the Petition be denied and

26

dismissed with prejudice. Petitioner filed timely written objections to the Magistrate

27

Judge’s Report and Recommendations.

28

After a de novo review the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s categorization

1

of Petitioner’s claims as follows: Grounds 1, 2 and 3 correspond to three of the four

2

issues raised on direct appeal. Grounds 4 through 29 correspond to the 12 grounds for

3

relief raised in Petitioner’s state Petition for Post-Conviction Relief raised as ineffective

4

assistance of appellate counsel. Those 12 grounds also included sub-issues. Grounds 7-

5

26, 28 and 29 are presented by Petitioner in this Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus as

6

grounds for relief independent of any ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim.

7

The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that because Petitioner raised these claims

8

only as ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claims in state court these claims can

9

be evaluated here only under the standards of ineffective of assistance of appellate

10

counsel and not as independent claims. They are unexhausted and procedurally defaulted

11

and absent showing actual innocence these claims cannot be reviewed independently.

12

In Petitioner’s objections he objects to the finding that there was procedural

13

default without excuse on Grounds 7-26, 28 and 29. The excuse that he offers with

14

respect to all of these independent claims previously raised only as ineffective assistance

15

of appellate counsel is the ineffective assistance of his appellate counsel. With respect to

16

each of these claims his objections state that counsel’s ineffectiveness is the excuse for

17

why the claim was not raised on direct appeal and the reason why the default should be

18

excused. This is not a sufficient basis to excuse the procedural default and the Court

19

agrees with the Magistrate Judge that these claims can only be evaluated as claims of

20

ineffective assistance of appellate counsel and not on independent grounds.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Ground 1
On direct appeal Petitioner raised the claim that the trial court erred in admitting
certain pornographic computer images at trial. Petitioner does not dispute that this claim
was not federalized by his appellate lawyer and was argued only under state law.
Petitioner objects to the finding that he has failed to overcome this procedural default by
demonstrating cause and prejudice or by showing actual innocence. Petitioner points to a
letter sent to his attorney prior to the filing of the appellate brief requesting that she
federalize all claims raised. While Petitioner may have demanded that his appellate
-2-

1

lawyer federalize all his claims, even if she had done so he has failed to show the merit of

2

the claim. The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the trial court’s ruling on the

3

admission of the images under the Arizona Rules of Evidence was reasonable as was the

4

appellate court’s affirmance of the ruling. Moreover, Petitioner has not shown that if it

5

were error the admission infected his trial with error of constitutional dimensions denying

6

him due process.

7

Ground 2

8
9

Petitioner’s appellate counsel raised Ground 2 on appeal arguing that it was error

10

to preclude evidence of one of the victim’s viewing of pornographic material. As with

11

Ground 1, his attorney did not federalize the claim but only argued it under state law.

12

Even if Petitioner’s present claim of due process violations were exhausted, he has not

13

demonstrated that the preclusion of this evidence pursuant to a state rule of evidence

14

would rise to the level of a violation of his rights to Due Process under the United States

15

Constitution. The Court’s review of the record discloses what the Magistrate Judge also

16

saw. Much of the evidence Petitioner sought to admit was admitted despite the granting

17

of the prosecution’s motion in limine concerning the viewing of pornographic images by

18

the victim. Therefore even if not procedurally barred this claim fails on the merits.

19

Because it fails on the merits, the claim that his appellate lawyer was ineffective for

20

failing to provide a federal basis for the claim also fails.

21

Ground 3

22
23

Ground 3 was raised on direct appeal. In his appellate brief Petitioner argued that

24

he was entitled to present evidence of good character to rebut the state’s allegations

25

against him and specifically evidence of his acquittal in a Michigan case involving the

26

same victims. His appellate lawyer did not federalize the claim and argued it solely

27

under state law. In rejecting this argument for reversing Petitioner’s conviction the

28

Arizona Court of Appeals related that the trial record did not identify the specific acts of

-3-

1

which Petitioner had been acquitted in Michigan and absent this information could not

2

conclude that the trial erred by precluding evidence of the acquittal. The Magistrate

3

Judge correctly noted that the state court evidentiary rulings, even if erroneous, are not

4

grounds for federal habeas relief unless the ruling renders the state proceedings so

5

fundamentally unfair as to violate due process. Federal courts have consistently held that

6

evidence of an acquittal in a prior proceeding is generally inadmissible. The rationale is

7

that an acquittal does not support a finding of innocence but only a finding that the

8

prosecution did not establish an essential element of the charge beyond a reasonable

9

doubt. Because the weight of federal authority would not have permitted the admission in

10

evidence of Petitioner’s acquittal, the Court cannot conclude that the state court’s ruling

11

on this claim violated Petitioner’s constitutional rights to fundamental fairness at trial.

12

Petitioner has failed to establish that the state court’s adjudication of this claim was

13

contrary to or involved in unreasonable application of clearly-established federal law.

14

Ground 4

15

In Ground 4 Petitioner claims that his rights to due process, compulsory process

16

and a fair trial were violated because a government witness threatened a defense witness

17

to prevent him from testifying at trial. The witness who did not testify at trial was

18

Petitioner’s son, Frank, who submitted an affidavit in support of Petitioner’s Petition for

19

Post-Conviction Relief claiming he had been threatened by Petitioner’s wife if he were to

20

appear and testify at trial. In rejecting this claim the state court found that there was no

21

showing of state action and, therefore, no violation of compulsory process rights because

22

the unavailability of the witness was not the result of state action. The Arizona Court of

23

Appeals commented in its affirmance that Petitioner provided no evidentiary support that

24

a state agent was involved in the alleged intimidation of his son Frank. Petitioner argues

25

that the trial court erred in failing to allow an evidentiary hearing where he could

26

ascertain whether his wife acted alone or at the suggestion of a state actor.

27

In order to prevail on this claim Petitioner must show that the state court’s

28

adjudication was either contrary to or involved an unreasonable application of clearly-

-4-

1

established federal law. He has not. The affidavit provides no basis for any court to

2

conclude that Petitioner’s wife was acting as an agent of the state when she allegedly

3

threatened Frank to keep him from testifying. The Court agrees with the Magistrate

4

Judge that this claim fails on the merits.

5
6

Ground 5
Ground 5 presents a closely-related claim to Ground Four. In his Petition for Post-

7

Conviction Relief Petitioner raised as a claim of alleged newly- discovered evidence the

8

information contained in Frank’s affidavit. Petitioner argued had this evidence been

9

presented at trial he would not have been convicted. In his objections Petitioner takes

10

issue with the Magistrate Judge’s finding that the trial court denied this claim as frivolous

11

and also argues that he federalized the claim by referencing a United States Supreme

12

Court case. Petitioner argues, as he did for Ground Four, that if only an evidentiary

13

hearing had been ordered by the state court he would have been able to prove his claim.

14

Issue number one in Petitioner’s Petition for Post-Conviction Relief involved these

15

two issues related to his son’s testimony. The heading cites the Fifth, Sixth and

16

Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution but the three paragraphs

17

devoted to the argument concerning the alleged newly- discovered evidence refers only to

18

state court standards for a new trial. The mere citation of a federal case is insufficient to

19

federalize a claim. The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that Ground Five is

20

procedurally barred because it was not fairly presented to the state court as a federal

21

claim nor has Petitioner argued cause and prejudice or actual innocence to overcome this

22

procedural bar.

23
24

Grounds 6, 7-26, 28 and 29
Ground 6 and Grounds 7-26, 28 and 29 are all claims of ineffective assistance of

25

appellate counsel. Ground 6 is denominated a claim of ineffective assistance of appellate

26

counsel. As the Court previously noted Grounds 7-26, 28 and 29 can only be considered

27

by this Court as ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claims because they were

28

never raised as independent grounds for post-conviction relief in state court.

-5-

1

In addition to his single claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel these

2

additional 22 claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel are described similarly

3

in Petitioner’s objections as “dead bang” winner arguments that should have been raised

4

by his appellate counsel in his state appeal of his conviction and sentence. While

5

Petitioner concedes in his briefs that appellate counsel is not required to raise every single

6

issue a defendant wishes to raise, he argues that these issues should have been raised at

7

his insistence by his appellate counsel. The state court denied Petitioner’s claim of

8

ineffective assistance of counsel finding that as to some of the claims Petitioner’s counsel

9

could not have raised them on appeal because Petitioner had failed to preserve the issues

10

at trial and as to others the issues lacked legal merit. The Court agrees with the extensive

11

discussion by the Magistrate Judge as to all of the claims of ineffective assistance of

12

appellate counsel. Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that counsel’s decision to argue the

13

claims she presented on direct appeal was objectively unreasonable. Petitioner has also

14

failed to show that had his appellate counsel raised any or all of these additional claims

15

that the result of his appeal would have been different.

16
17

Ground 27
Ground 27 was raised for the first time in Petitioner’s Petition for Post-Conviction

18

Relief. It is a claim of lack of subject matter jurisdiction based on an allegedly flawed

19

Indictment. The trial court denied the claim as precluded under Arizona Rule of Criminal

20

Procedure, 32.2(a) and the Court of Appeals denied the constitutional claim as precluded

21

for failure to raise it on direct appeal. The state court also found that Petitioner’s

22

appellate counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise this claim. As the Magistrate

23

Judge explained defects in an Indictment are required to be raised in a motion filed in

24

accordance with Rule 16, Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. Ariz. R. Crim. P.

25

13.5(e). Petitioner counters that because his Indictment was flawed this impacted state

26

court subject matter jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived and can

27

be raised at any time. The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that if the Indictment

28

were defective that defect did not create a lack of subject matter jurisdiction in the state

-6-

1

court. The claim lacks merit and, therefore, the failure to raise the claim on direct appeal

2

could not be considered ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

IT IS ORDERED overruling Petitioner’s Objections to the Report and
Recommendation of Magistrate Judge.
IT IS ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate
Judge as the Order of this Court. (Doc. 47)
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
is denied and dismissed with prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Request to Supplement the Record
of his Writ of Habeas Corpus is denied. (Doc. 44)
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying a Certificate of Appealability because

12

denial of the Petition is justified by a plain procedural bar and jurist of reason would not

13

find the ruling debatable and because Petitioner has failed to show the denial of a federal

14

constitutional right.

15

Dated this 11th day of August, 2017.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-7-