Otero v. Ryan et al
Filing
13
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 10 ) is accepted and adopted by the Court. Petitioner's Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody is denied and that this action is dismissed with prejudice. A Certificate of Appealability shall not issue and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is denied because the petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Senior Judge Paul G Rosenblatt on 4/6/17. (KGM)
1
WO
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9
10
David Botello Otero,
Petitioner,
11
12
13
14
15
vs.
Charles L. Ryan, et al.,
Respondents.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. CV-16-00733-PHX-PGR (MHB)
ORDER
16
Having reviewed de novo the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate
17
Judge Burns in light of the petitioner’s Response and Objections to the Magistrate
18
Judge’s Report and Recommendations (Doc. 11) and the respondents’ Response
19
to Petitioner Otero’s Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
20
Recommendation (Doc. 12), the Court finds that the petitioner’s objections should
21
be overruled because the Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that the petitioner’s
22
habeas petition, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, should be denied.
23
The petitioner pleaded guilty to one count of first degree murder and one
24
count of abandonment or concealment of a dead body. In Ground One of his
25
habeas petition, the petitioner alleges that his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights
26
were violated during his grand jury proceedings. In Ground Two, he alleges that his
1
Sixth Amendment right was violated because he was denied effective assistance of
2
counsel during his grand jury proceedings. In Ground Three, he alleges that his Fifth
3
Amendment rights were violated when his involuntary and incriminating statements
4
were not suppressed. In Ground Four, he alleges that his counsel was ineffective for
5
filing to file a motion to suppress. In Ground Six, in what is in effect a combination
6
of his Grounds Two And Four, he alleges that his plea agreement violated his Fifth
7
and Sixth Amendment rights because his counsel was ineffective throughout the
8
case and his counsel’s advice to plead guilty was unreasonable.
9
The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that Grounds One through Four
10
and Ground Six are barred by the petitioner’s guilty plea pursuant to Tollett v.
11
Henderson, 411 U.S. 258 (1973), because they are all pre-plea constitutional claims
12
that are not based on a jurisdictional defect.
13
In Ground Five, the petitioner alleges that his counsel was ineffective, in
14
violation of his Sixth Amendment right, for failing to object to the state’s
15
unreasonable characterization of the petitioner at his sentencing. The Court agrees
16
with the Magistrate Judge that this claim fails on its merits. The state PCR court’s
17
conclusion that this claim was meritless because the sentencing transcript belied the
18
plaintiff’s assertion, which conclusion the Arizona Court of Appeals adopted as its
19
own, was neither contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established
20
Supreme Court precedent, nor did it involve an unreasonable determination of the
21
relevant facts in light of the state court record. Therefore,
22
23
IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation
(Doc. 10) is accepted and adopted by the Court.
24
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petitioner’s Petition Under 28 U.S.C. §
25
2254 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody is denied and that
26
-2-
1
this action is dismissed with prejudice.
2
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a Certificate of Appealability shall not issue
3
and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is denied because the petitioner
4
has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.
5
6
7
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment
accordingly.
DATED this 6th day of April, 2017.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
-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?