Bustamante #124984 v. Ryan et al

Filing 44

ORDER: The Report and Recommendation 42 is ADOPTED and the petition for writ of habeas corpus is DENIED and DISMISSED. Petitioner's objections 43 are OVERRULED. Petitioner's Motion for Judgment 34 is DENIED. A Certificate of Appealabi lity and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal are DENIED because the dismissal of the petition is justified by a plain procedural bar and jurists of reason would not find the procedural ruling debatable. Signed by Senior Judge Roslyn O Silver on 9/11/2017. (REK)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Martin Abel Bustamante, Petitioner, 10 11 ORDER v. 12 No. CV-16-01515-PHX-ROS Charles L Ryan, et al., 13 Respondents. 14 15 Petitioner Martin Bustamante was convicted by a jury in Maricopa County 16 Superior Court of kidnapping, theft by extortion, aggravated assault, and misconduct 17 involving weapons. (Doc. 32-1 at 14-15.) Petitioner filed a habeas petition where he 18 raised four grounds for relief: (1) insufficient evidence for conviction and malicious 19 prosecution1; (2) equal protection violation; (3) excessive sentences, particularly 20 regarding the consecutive sentences, and (4) ineffective assistance of counsel for not 21 moving to sever the case and not objecting to the indictment based on Petitioner’s mere 22 presence defense. (Doc. 1 at 6-10.) On February 8, 2017, Petitioner filed a Motion for 23 Judgment where he asked the Court to answer his habeas petition in favor of Petitioner 24 and grant a writ of habeas corpus. (Doc. 34.) 25 Deborah M. Fine issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending the 26 petition for writ of habeas corpus be denied and dismissed with prejudice. (Doc. 42.) On May 2, 2017, Magistrate Judge 27 28 1 It appears Petitioner alleged two arguments in Ground One, and the R&R analyzes both. 1 Regarding the first part of Ground One, Petitioner argued the evidence was 2 insufficient to sustain his guilty verdict. (Doc. 1 at 6.) The R&R found this claim lacked 3 merit because the Arizona Court of Appeals’ denial of this claim on direct appeal did not 4 rest on unreasonable factual determinations, nor did it unreasonably apply clearly 5 established federal law. (Doc. 42 at 11-16.) The R&R concluded Petitioner did not 6 exhaust the second part of Ground One, the malicious prosecution claim, as well as 7 Grounds Two through Four because Petitioner did not raise these grounds on direct 8 appeal or as part of properly brought post-conviction relief proceedings. (Id. at 8-9.) The 9 R&R found there is no malicious prosecution claim in the record at any stage of his 10 appeal or PCR proceedings, and Petitioner admitted he did not raise grounds Two and 11 Four in the Arizona Court of Appeals. (Id. at 9; see Doc. 1 at 8, 10.) Although 12 Petitioner’s habeas petition asserted he raised Ground Three in his second PCR petition, 13 (id. at 9), the trial court dismissed the proceeding after Petitioner failed to file the second 14 PCR petition by the deadline. (Doc. 42 at 9.) And although Petitioner’s habeas petition 15 argued in Ground Three that his sentence is excessive, his first PCR petition did not argue 16 whether his sentence was excessive, but rather it argued an ineffective assistance of 17 counsel claim based on the trial counsel’s failure to adequately make this challenge. 18 (Doc. 32-2 at 3.) Further, the R&R concluded Petitioner has not established cause and 19 prejudice for the default or established actual innocence. (Doc. 42 at 1.) 20 The R&R thus recommended the insufficiency of evidence claim in Ground One 21 be dismissed, and the malicious prosecution claim in Ground One as well as Grounds 22 Two, Three, and Four be dismissed because these unexhausted claims are procedurally 23 defaulted. (Id.) The R&R also recommended the Motion for Judgment be denied for the 24 same reasons. 25 A district judge “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 26 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). Where any party 27 has filed timely objections to the R&R, the district court’s review of the part objected to 28 must be de novo. Id. If, however, no objections are filed, the district court need not -2- 1 conduct such a review. Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2 2003). 3 Here, Petitioner’s objections were limited to three bases: the doctrine of laches, he 4 was prejudiced when his appointed counsel on appeal lacked qualifications, and he has 5 acted with reasonable diligence. (Doc. 43 at 1-2.) First, the Court does not see how the 6 doctrine of laches is a valid basis for objecting to any recommendation of dismissal 7 contained in the R&R. Second, Petitioner’s objections regarding prejudice and diligence 8 appear to be related to procedural default. 9 reasonable diligence and that his previous appellate counsel lacked qualifications, these 10 assertions do not sufficiently establish cause to excuse the procedural default and 11 prejudice from a violation of federal law. Petitioner has not shown an objective factor 12 external to the defense that he was prevented from properly raising his claims in state 13 court, especially when he previously raised other claims. See Murray v. Carrier, 477 14 U.S. 478, 488 (1986). Nor has Petitioner established that his appellate counsel made an 15 error which amounted to a deprivation of a constitutional right to counsel in order to 16 provide cause for excusing the procedural default. Thus, Petitioner has not provided 17 valid objections to the R&R, and the Court agrees with the R&R’s finding that Petitioner 18 failed to establish cause and prejudice for default. Although he stated that he acted with 19 Accordingly, 20 IT IS ORDERED the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 42) is ADOPTED and 21 22 23 24 25 the petition for writ of habeas corpus is DENIED and DISMISSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Petitioner’s objections (Doc. 43) are OVERRULED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Petitioner’s Motion for Judgment (Doc. 34) is DENIED. 26 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED a Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed 27 in forma pauperis on appeal are DENIED because the dismissal of the petition is justified 28 by a plain procedural bar and jurists of reason would not find the procedural ruling -3- 1 2 debatable. Dated this 11th day of September, 2017. 3 4 5 Honorable Roslyn O. Silver Senior United States District Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -4-

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?