Zanzot #092657 v. Ryan et al

Filing 33

ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 27 - Petitioner's Objections (Doc. 31 ) are overruled. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1 ) is denied and dismis sed with prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, a Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal are denied because dismissal of the Petition is justifie d by a plain procedural bar and jurists of reason would not find the procedural ruling debatable. IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall terminate this action and enter judgment accordingly. (See document for further details). Signed by Judge Diane J Humetewa on 11/16/16. (LAD)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

James Joseph Zanzot,
Petitioner,

10
11

ORDER

v.

12

No. CV-15-00485-PHX-DJH

Charles L. Ryan, et al.,

13

Respondents.

14
15

This matter is before the Court on Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

16

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1) and the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”)

17

issued by United States Magistrate Michelle H. Burns (Doc. 27). Petitioner has filed an

18

Objection to the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 31). Respondents have not filed a

19

response to Petitioner’s Objection.

20

Petitioner raises four grounds for relief in the Petition. In Ground One, Petitioner

21

alleges that the State breached the plea agreement he entered in violation of the Fifth and

22

Fourteenth Amendments. In Ground Two, Petitioner alleges prosecutorial misconduct in

23

violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Petitioner alleges in Ground Three

24

that his attorney at sentencing provided ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to

25

object to the imposition of aggravated and consecutive sentences. Finally, in Ground

26

Four, Petitioner alleges that the trial court erred when it imposed an aggravated sentence.

27

After a thorough analysis, the Magistrate Judge determined that Petitioner’s claims are

28

procedurally defaulted and that he failed to present any valid reasons to excuse his

1

procedural defaults. Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge recommends the Petition be

2

denied and dismissed with prejudice. (Doc. 27 at 12).

3

I. Background

4

Pursuant to a plea agreement dated March 19, 2009, Petitioner pled guilty to one

5

count of burglary in the third degree with sexual motivation, a class four felony under

6

Arizona law, with a prior felony conviction. (Doc. 16-1 at 12). He also pled guilty to

7

two counts of voyeurism, class five felonies. (Id.). At the sentencing hearing on October

8

30, 2009, Petitioner was sentenced to a total of 12.5 years in prison, which included 7.5

9

years on the burglary count, plus two consecutive 2.5 year terms on the voyeurism

10

counts. (Doc. 16-1 at 21-23). The R&R summarizes the procedural background of the

11

case, including Petitioner’s request for post-conviction relief and for appellate review.

12

(Doc. 27 at 1-3). The Court therefore finds it unnecessary to repeat the same information

13

here. Moreover, Petitioner has not objected to the information in the background section.

14

See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1989) (The relevant provision of the Federal

15

Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), “does not on its face require any review at all

16

. . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.”).

17

II. Analysis

18

The district judge "shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the

19

report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made."

20

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge must

21

determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly

22

objected to.”); U.S. v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (same). The judge "may

23

accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by

24

the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3).

25

A comprehensive summary of the legal standards governing exhaustion of state

26

court remedies and procedural default is provided in the R&R (Doc. 27 at 4-8). Because

27

Petitioner does not object to the legal standards set forth in the R&R, this Court relies on

28

those standards for its analysis.

-2-

1

As referenced in the R&R, a petitioner must exhaust his remedies in state court

2

before filing a habeas petition in federal court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1) and (c). To

3

exhaust state court remedies in Arizona, a petitioner must fairly present his claims to the

4

Arizona Court of Appeals either through the state’s direct appeal process or through post-

5

conviction relief. See Swoopes v. Sublett, 196 F.3d 1008, 1010 (9th Cir. 1999).

6

“In order to ‘fairly present’ an issue to a state court, a petitioner must ‘present the

7

substance of his claim to the state courts, including a reference to a federal constitutional

8

guarantee and a statement of facts that entitle the petitioner to relief.’” Gulbrandson v.

9

Ryan, 738 F.3d 976, 992 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Scott v. Schriro, 567 F.3d 573, 582 (9th

10

Cir. 2009)); see also Tamalini v. Stewart, 249 F.3d 895, 898-99 (9th Cir. 2001) (finding

11

the petitioner failed to fairly present his federal claims to the state court because he did

12

not describe the operative facts and federal legal theory upon which his claims were

13

based) (citations omitted).

14

presented” to the state courts the exact federal claim he raises on habeas by describing the

15

operative facts and federal legal theory on which the claim is based. See Picard v.

16

Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 275-278 (1971). “Our rule is that a state prisoner has not ‘fairly

17

presented’ (and thus exhausted) his federal claims in state court unless he specifically

18

indicated to that court that those claims were based on federal law.” Lyons v. Crawford,

19

232 F.3d 666, 668 (9th Cir. 2000), amended on other grounds, 247 F.3d 904 (9th Cir.

20

2001). “If a petitioner fails to alert the state court to the fact that he is raising a federal

21

constitutional claim, his federal claim is unexhausted regardless of its similarity to the

22

issues raised in state court.” Johnson v. Zenon, 88 F.3d 828, 830 (9th Cir. 1996).

Proper exhaustion requires a petitioner to have “fairly

23

In this case, the Arizona Court of Appeals determined that Petitioner had properly

24

presented only two claims in his petition for review following the denial of his petition

25

for post-conviction relief, the first of which was a direct challenge to the grand jury

26

proceedings and the second of which was a claim that the trial court erred in considering

27

Petitioner’s prior conviction as an aggravating factor for sentencing purposes. Neither of

28

these claims is raised in Petitioner’s habeas petition. Thus, because none of Petitioner’s

-3-

1

federal habeas claims are the same as the claims he raised in his petition for review in the

2

Arizona Court of Appeals, his habeas claims have not been properly exhausted.

3

Moreover, returning to the state court to properly exhaust the claims at this stage would

4

be futile.1 Petitioner’s claims are, therefore, procedurally defaulted.

5

With regard to Ground One, Petitioner objects to the Magistrate Judge’s

6

procedural default determination by arguing that the Arizona Court of Appeals was

7

required to review the entire record for fundamental and legal errors. (Doc. 31 at 3). In

8

addition, Petitioner argues that the Court of Appeals was required to not only consider the

9

claims presented in that court but also consider the claims presented in the initial petition

10

for post-conviction relief in the trial court. Petitioner’s argument, however, would render

11

the exhaustion requirement meaningless. It was Petitioner’s responsibility to present his

12

habeas claims first to the trial court in his petition for post-conviction relief and then to

13

the Arizona Court of Appeals. Petitioner was required to first provide the state courts a

14

full and fair opportunity to address his claims before presenting them in a habeas petition.

15

The claim he raises here in Ground One, that the prosecution breached the plea

16

agreement by alleging as an aggravating factor at sentencing that Petitioner committed

17

the offenses while on probation, was not fairly presented to both the trial court and to the

18

Arizona Court of Appeals. The claim is therefore procedurally defaulted and Petitioner

19

has not demonstrated cause and prejudice or a fundamental miscarriage of justice that

20

would excuse the procedural default.

21

Regarding Ground Two, in which Petitioner alleges the prosecutor engaged in

22

misconduct during the grand jury proceedings, Petitioner claims he argued this claim

23

“either in a direct or indirect manner” in the state trial court and at the Court of Appeals.

24

(Doc. 31 at 6). He concedes, however, that his petition for review in the Court of

25
1

26
27
28

Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2(a) provides that a defendant is
precluded from post-conviction relief on any ground that could have been raised on direct
appeal or that was decided in a prior post-conviction petition. In addition, the time has
passed to seek post-conviction relief in the State court under Rule 32.4(a) of the Arizona
Rules of Criminal Procedure and Petitioner has not shown any of the exceptions to the
time limits identified in Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure 32.1(d), (e), (f), (g) or (h)
apply to him.
-4-

1

Appeals “lacked articulation of these specific claims” of prosecutorial misconduct. (Id.).

2

Despite acknowledging that his petition in the Arizona Court of Appeals did not present

3

the same prosecutorial misconduct claim that is presented here in his habeas petition, he

4

claims that he satisfied the exhaustion requirement and his claim is not procedurally

5

defaulted. The Court disagrees. As the above referenced legal authority establishes, to

6

fairly present a claim in state court, a petitioner must have described the same operative

7

facts and federal legal theory upon which his habeas claim is based. As Petitioner

8

concedes, he failed to do so here. Ground Two is therefore procedurally defaulted and

9

Petitioner has not made the requisite showing to excuse the procedural default.

10

Petitioner alleges in Ground Three that he received ineffective assistance of

11

counsel when his lawyer at sentencing failed to object when the trial court used

12

Petitioner’s probation status as an aggravating factor. Petitioner claims that pursuant to

13

his plea agreement, his probation status at the time of the offense could not be used to

14

increase his sentence.

15

assistance claim to the Arizona Court of Appeals in his petition for review. (Doc. 16-2 at

16

5-11). Petitioner therefore failed to exhaust his state court remedies.

Petitioner, however, did not present this specific ineffective

17

Petitioner contends that he did “touch on” this argument in both the trial court and

18

in the Court of Appeals. (Doc. 31 at 8). He contends that by reading all the documents

19

from the post-conviction relief proceedings, the Court should conclude that Petitioner

20

attempted to present this claim. Petitioner contends that “the grounds for which counsel

21

should have objected to these aggravated consecutive sentences were based on the only

22

obvious reasons cited in the sentencing transcripts” and the plea agreement. (Doc. 31 at

23

8). Thus, Petitioner is essentially arguing that it is the Court’s obligation to discern what

24

his intended claims were in state court by reviewing the complete record, rather than rely

25

on the claims he specifically identified in his post-conviction petition and petition for

26

review. However, as the above cited authority indicates, the obligation to clearly identify

27

his claims rests with Petitioner. Petitioner’s ineffective assistance claim in the petition

28

for review to the Arizona Court of Appeals failed to mention anything about counsel’s

-5-

1

failure to object to the trial court’s use of his probation status as an aggravating factor.

2

Because Petitioner failed to present this claim to the Arizona Court of Appeals, the claim

3

has not been exhausted. As noted above, returning to the state court to properly exhaust

4

the claims at this stage would be futile. The claim is therefore procedurally defaulted and

5

Petitioner has not demonstrated cause and prejudice or a fundamental miscarriage of

6

justice that would excuse the procedural default.

7

Lastly, with regard to Ground Four, Petitioner alleges the trial court erred at the

8

sentencing hearing by considering his probation status even though the plea agreement

9

dismissed the allegation that he was on probation at the time of the offense. He further

10

claims the trial court erred by imposing aggravated and consecutive sentences on the

11

voyeurism counts after Petitioner declined lifetime probation on those counts. Petitioner

12

also claims the Court erred by requiring him to register as a sex offender.

13

As referenced above, the Arizona Court of Appeals concluded that the petition for

14

review properly presented only two issues, a challenge to the grand jury proceedings and

15

a claim that the trial court could not consider his prior convictions as an aggravating

16

factor at sentencing. (Doc. 16-2 at 38). The Court of Appeals further explained:

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

While Zanzot presents many other issues in his petition for
review, he did not raise those same issues in the petition for
post-conviction relief he filed below. While some of these
issues may be similar to the issues presented below, Zanzot
presents these issues in new contexts he did not present below
and/or supports these issues with new arguments he did not
present below. A petition for review may not present issues
and arguments not first presented to the trial court. [citations
omitted]
(Doc. 16-2 at 138). Because Petitioner’s claim in Ground Four is not among those
identified by the Arizona Court of Appeals as properly presented in the petition for
review, the claim in Ground Four has not been exhausted. Petitioner presents nothing in
his Objection (Doc. 31) to persuade the Court otherwise.

The claim is therefore

procedurally defaulted and Petitioner has not demonstrated cause and prejudice or a
fundamental miscarriage of justice that would excuse the procedural default.

28

-6-

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, and after conducting a de novo review of the Magistrate
Judge’s procedural default determinations, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge
and concludes that Petitioner’s grounds for relief are procedurally defaulted.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Burns’ R&R (Doc. 27) is accepted and
adopted. Petitioner's Objections (Doc. 31) are overruled.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1) is denied and dismissed with prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing
Section 2254 Cases, a Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis
on appeal are denied because dismissal of the Petition is justified by a plain procedural
bar and jurists of reason would not find the procedural ruling debatable.
IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall terminate this action
and enter judgment accordingly.
Dated this 16th day of November, 2016.

16
17
18

Honorable Diane J. Humetewa
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-7-