Tibbetts v. Ryan et al

Filing 14

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION recommending 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State/2254) be denied and dismissed with prejudice and that a Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal be denied because dismissal of the Petition is justified by a plain procedural bar and jurists of reason would not find the ruling debatable. Signed by Magistrate Judge David K Duncan on 3/12/18. (DXD)

Download PDF
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Jason Earl Tibbetts, No. CV-17-2499-PHX-ROS (DKD) Petitioner, 10 11 v. 12 Charles Ryan, et al., REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 13 Respondents. 14 15 TO THE HONORABLE ROSLYN O. SILVER, SENIOR U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE: 16 Jason Earl Tibbetts timely filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”) 17 in this Court. Respondents argue that Tibbetts’ claims are either unexhausted, subject to 18 a procedural bar, or without merit. 19 Respondents and recommends that Tibbetts’ Petition be denied and dismissed with 20 prejudice. 21 I. As described below, the Court agrees with Background. 22 In June 2014, Tibbetts was indicted by a Pinal County Grand Jury on one count of 23 luring a minor for sexual exploitation, a class 3 felony, and one count of sexual 24 exploitation of a minor, a class 2 felony. (Doc. 7, Ex. A) In November 2014, a detective 25 in the Apache Junction police department swore an affidavit for a second search warrant 26 of Tibbetts’ cell phone to be conducted with newly released forensic technology that 27 could obtain deleted content. (Doc. 9, Ex. R at 12). 28 1 At the conclusion of a jury trial in Pinal County Superior Court, Tibbetts was 2 found guilty of both counts in the indictment. (Doc. 7, Ex. B) Tibbetts was sentenced to 3 concurrent terms, the longest of which was 12 years. (Doc. 7, Ex. B) Tibbetts, through 4 counsel, initiated a direct appeal and argued that he was prejudiced when the Superior 5 Court denied his trial counsel’s line of questioning based on Ariz. Rev. Stat. §13-1421, 6 commonly known as the rape shield law. (Doc. 7, Exs. C, D) At the conclusion of 7 briefing, the Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed Tibbetts’ convictions and sentences. 8 (Doc. 7, Exs. E, F) 9 Tibbetts then filed a Notice of Post-Conviction Relief. (Doc. 7, Ex. G) After his 10 counsel informed the Superior Court that he could find no meritorious or colorable claims 11 for relief, he requested an extension of time for Tibbetts to file a pro per petition. (Doc. 12 7, Ex. H) It appears that the Court granted that request and Tibbetts filed a pro per 13 petition where he alleged various ways he received ineffective assistance of counsel and 14 was subjected to errors by the trial judge. (Doc. 7, Ex. I) At the conclusion of briefing, 15 the Superior Court ruled that the arguments in the Petition were “precluded as having 16 been previously ruled upon or untimely filed or the Petition lack[ed] sufficient basis in 17 law and fact to warrant further proceedings herein and no useful purpose would be served 18 by further proceedings.” (Doc. 7, Ex. J; Doc. 8, Exs. K, L at 1) 19 Tibbetts then appealed the Superior Court’s denial of his petition to the Arizona 20 Court of Appeals. (Doc. 8, Ex. M) At the conclusion of briefing, the Court of Appeals 21 granted review and denied relief. (Doc. 8, Exs. N, O, P) The Court of Appeals first 22 concluded that Tibbetts’ claims of trial error were precluded under Arizona Rule of 23 Criminal Procedure 32.2(a)(3) “because they could have been raised on appeal but were 24 not.” (Doc. 8, Ex. P at ¶ 4) The Court also summarily rejected the “bulk of Tibbetts’s 25 claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel” because he had “not provided supporting 26 evidence or citations to the record, nor ha[d] he shown that, had counsel acted as Tibbetts 27 believed he should have, the result of the case would have been different.” (Doc. 8, Ex. P 28 at ¶ 6) Similarly, the Court of Appeals concluded that he was not entitled to relief for any -2- 1 of his ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claims “[b]ecause he ha[d] not 2 established that any of these arguments would warrant relief on appeal.” (Doc. 8, Ex. P 3 at ¶ 8) The Court also declined to address several of Tibbetts’ claims because he had not 4 provided any supporting evidence. (Doc. 8, Ex. P at ¶¶ 9,12, n.4) 5 Tibbetts then filed his Petition in this Court where he argues he is entitled to relief 6 because of ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel, prosecutorial misconduct, 7 and trial court errors. (Doc. 1) Respondents argue that most of Tibbetts’ claims cannot 8 be reviewed by this Court and the ones that can be reviewed are without merit. (Doc. 6) 9 II. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Claims. 10 a. 11 A state prisoner must properly exhaust all state court remedies before this Court 12 can grant an application for a writ of habeas corpus. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1), (c); Duncan 13 v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365 (1995); Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 731 (1991). 14 Arizona prisoners properly exhaust state remedies by fairly presenting claims to the 15 Arizona Court of Appeals in a procedurally appropriate manner. O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 16 526 U.S. 838, 843-45 (1999); Swoopes v. Sublett, 196 F.3d 1008, 1010 (9th Cir. 1999); 17 Roettgen v. Copeland, 33 F.3d 36, 38 (9th Cir. 1994). To fairly present a claim, a 18 petitioner must support it with a statement of the operative facts and the specific federal 19 legal theory. Baldwin v. Reese, 541 U.S. 27, 32-33 (2004); Gray v. Netherland, 518 U.S. 20 152, 162-63 (1996); Duncan, 513 U.S. at 365-66. General appeals to broad constitutional 21 principles, “such as due process, equal protection, and the right to a fair trial,” do not 22 establish exhaustion. Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1106 (9th Cir. 1999). Claims in the Petition that were not presented to the Court of Appeals. 23 An implied procedural bar exists if a petitioner does not fairly present his claim in 24 state court and no state remedies remain available. Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 298-99 25 (1989); Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 519-20 (1982); Beaty v. Stewart, 303 F.3d 975, 987 26 (9th Cir. 2002); Poland v. Stewart, 169 F.3d 573, 586 (9th Cir. 1999); White v. Lewis, 874 27 F.2d 599, 602 (9th Cir. 1989). 28 -3- 1 It is undisputed that several of Tibbetts’ claims of ineffective assistance of trial 2 counsel were raised for the first time in the Petition. Specifically, his claims that trial 3 counsel failed to: object to irrelevant witnesses; provide discovery documents to Tibbetts, 4 including police reports and the Grand Jury indictment; waived time without Tibbetts’ 5 presence or permission; and object to prosecutorial misconduct. (Doc. 1 at 6; Doc. 7, Ex. 6 I; Doc. 8, Ex. M) In addition, several of Tibbetts’ claims of ineffective assistance of 7 appellate counsel were raised in the Petition for the first time. Specifically, his claims 8 that appellate counsel failed to argue that: trial counsel should have interviewed witnesses 9 before trial; the trial court should not have allowed certain witnesses to testify; the trial 10 court should have conducted an evidentiary hearing; trial counsel failed to communicate 11 with Tibbetts; trial counsel failed to provide discovery documents to Tibbetts; trial 12 counsel waived time without Tibbetts’ presence or permission; trial counsel failed to 13 present all available defenses; and the cumulative effect of trial counsel’s errors 14 prejudiced Tibbetts. (Doc. 1 at 6; Doc. 7, Ex. I; Doc. 8, Ex. M) 15 Because Tibbetts did not present these claims to the Arizona Court of Appeals, 16 they were not exhausted. And because it is now too late to do so, these claims are also 17 subject to an implied procedural bar. 18 This Court can review a procedurally defaulted claim if the petitioner can 19 demonstrate either cause for the default and actual prejudice to excuse the default, or a 20 miscarriage of justice. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(c)(2)(B); Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 321 21 (1995); Coleman, 501 U.S. at 750; Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478, 495-96 (1986); 22 States v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152, 167-68 (1982). 23 Tibbetts argues “if even a single ground is not procedurally defaulted, then the 24 Petitioner argues that none of the grounds can be defaulted as all of the claims were 25 submitted in the same motions to the courts.” (emphasis in original) (Doc. 13 at 5) 26 Tibbetts cites no case law in support of this argument. Instead, the binding case law is 27 that this analysis occurs claim by claim. Hemmerle v. Schriro, 495 F.3d 1069, 1075 (9th 28 Cir. 2007); Insyxiengmay v. Morgan, 403 F.3d 657, 667 (9th Cir. 2005). Tibbetts makes -4- 1 no further arguments to demonstrate either cause for the default and actual prejudice to 2 excuse the default, or a miscarriage of justice. Accordingly, the Court concludes that it 3 cannot review these claims. 4 5 With one exception, the Court cannot review the remaining ineffective assistance of counsel claims. 6 A claim is subject to an express procedural bar if the state court denies or 7 dismisses a claim based on a procedural bar “that is both ‘independent’ of the merits of 8 the federal claim and an ‘adequate’ basis for the court’s decision.” Harris v. Reed, 489 9 U.S. 255, 260 (1989). The U.S. Supreme Court has concluded that Arizona’s “Rule 10 32.2(a)(3) determinations are independent of federal law because they do not depend 11 upon a federal constitutional ruling on the merits.” Stewart v. Smith, 536 U.S. 856, 860 12 (2002). See also Johnson v. Mississippi, 486 U.S. 578, 587 (1988) (“adequate” grounds 13 exist when a state strictly or regularly follows its procedural rule); Ylst v. Nunnemaker, 14 501 U.S. 797, 801 (1991); Robinson, 595 F.3d at 1100. If a claim is subject to an express 15 procedural bar, this Court cannot review them. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 b. Here, during post-conviction proceedings, the Arizona Court of Appeals rejected Tibbetts’ ineffective assistance of trial counsel claims as follows: The bulk of Tibbetts’s claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel concern counsel’s purported failure to adequately investigate and prepare the case and conduct trial. These claims warrant summary rejection because Tibbetts has not provided supporting evidence or citations to the record, nor has he shown that, had counsel acted as Tibbetts believed he should have, the result of the case would have been different. . . see also Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.9(c)(1) (Doc. 8, Ex. P at ¶ 6) The Court of Appeals then summarily rejected his ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claims: 24 25 26 27 Tibbetts has identified eight arguments he asserts his appellate counsel should have raised on appeal. Because he has not established that any of these arguments would warrant relief on appeal, he has demonstrated neither that counsel fell below prevailing professional norms or that he was prejudiced thereby. 28 -5- 1 (Doc. 8, Ex. P at ¶ 8) The Court of Appeals then reviewed some of his specific claims of 2 ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. 3 exception, all of these arguments were dismissed for failing to comply with Arizona Rule 4 of Criminal Procedure 32.9(c)(1). Thus, these claims were subjected to an express 5 procedural bar by the Arizona Court of Appeals and so this Court cannot review them. 6 As detailed above, Tibbetts has not demonstrated either cause for the default and actual 7 prejudice to excuse the default, or a miscarriage of justice. 8 concludes that it cannot review these claims. 9 c. (Doc. 8, Ex. P at ¶¶ 9-12) With one Therefore, the Court 10 Appellate counsel was not ineffective for failing to challenge venue or jurisdiction. 11 At the Court of Appeals, Tibbetts claims his counsel should have challenged 12 venue and jurisdiction because he was tried in Pinal County. The Court of Appeals 13 dismissed this argument on its merits because “the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction 14 over [Tibbetts] is not implicated if the case is brought in an improper county.” (Doc. 8, 15 Ex. P at ¶ 10) The Court further noted that venue can be waived and that Tibbetts had not 16 “overcome the presumption that counsel’s conduct was reasonable by demonstrating that 17 counsel’s decisions were not tactical in nature, but were instead the result of ineptitude, 18 inexperience or lack of preparation.” (Doc. 8, Ex. P at ¶10, n. 3) 19 In his Petition, Tibbetts argued that his counsel “failed to object to inappropriate 20 venue and jurisdiction” and the Court will assume that this claim is properly presented for 21 habeas review. (Doc. 1 at 6) 22 Under clearly established Federal law on ineffective assistance of counsel, 23 Tibbetts would need to show that his trial counsel’s performance was both (a) objectively 24 deficient and (b) caused him prejudice. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 25 (1984). This results in a “doubly deferential” review of counsel’s performance. Cullen v. 26 Pinholster, 131 S.Ct. 1388, 1403 (2011). Here, as in the Court of Appeals, Tibbetts has 27 not explained what would have occurred differently if his trial had occurred in a different 28 county. Accordingly, he is not entitled to relief. (Docs. 1, 13 at 9-10) -6- 1 III. Claims of prosecutorial misconduct (Count 2) and trial court error (Count 3). 2 During post-conviction proceedings, the Arizona Court of Appeals concluded that 3 Tibbetts’ “various claims of trial error [we]re precluded because they could have been 4 raised on [direct] appeal but were not. Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.2(a)(3).” (Doc. 8, Ex. P at ¶ 5 4) 6 misconduct and trial court error were also presented to the Court of Appeals, the Court 7 concludes that these claims still cannot be reviewed because they are subject to this 8 express procedural bar. Further, the Court concludes that Tibbetts has not demonstrated 9 either cause for the default and actual prejudice to excuse the default, or a miscarriage of Assuming without deciding that all of the Petition’s claims of prosecutorial 10 justice. 11 IV. Warrantless search claim. 12 In post-conviction proceedings, Tibbetts argued that he received ineffective 13 assistance of counsel because his appellate counsel failed to argue that trial counsel failed 14 to argue that his cell phone was searched without a warrant. (Doc. 7, Ex. I; Doc. 8, Ex. 15 M) Neither the Superior Court nor the Court of Appeals specifically addressed this 16 claim. (Doc. 8, Exs. L, P) Tibbetts raised this claim in his Petition. (Doc. 1 at 6; Doc. 17 13 at 6-7, 10-11) The Court will assume that this claim was addressed on its merits by 18 the Court of Appeals. Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 99 (2011) (“When a federal 19 claim has been presented to a state court and the state court has denied relief, it may be 20 presumed that the state court adjudicated the claim on the merits in the absence of any 21 indication or state-law procedural principles to the contrary”). 22 The Court concludes that this claim is based on a misunderstanding of the facts. 23 The record indicates that law enforcement obtained two search warrants and conducted 24 two searches of Tibbetts’ phone. (Doc. 9, Exs. Q, R) The first search used technology 25 that obtained the phone’s current content and the second search used newer technology 26 that obtained the phone’s deleted content. (Doc. 9-2 at 9) Tibbetts seems to have 27 concluded that both searches were conducted with only one warrant. (Doc. 13 at 10-11) 28 -7- 1 Because the Court concludes that both searches were proper, neither trial counsel nor 2 appellate counsel were ineffective for failing to raise this argument. 3 4 IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that Jason Earl Tibbetts’ Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be denied and dismissed with prejudice. 5 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that a Certificate of Appealability and 6 leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal be denied because dismissal of the Petition 7 is justified by a plain procedural bar and jurists of reason would not find the ruling 8 debatable. 9 This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth 10 Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules 11 of Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the district court’s judgment. 12 The parties shall have fourteen days from the date of service of a copy of this 13 recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the Court. See, 28 14 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Rules 72, 6(a), 6(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Thereafter, 15 the parties have fourteen days within which to file a response to the objections. Failure 16 timely to file objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation may 17 result in the acceptance of the Report and Recommendation by the district court without 18 further review. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). 19 Failure timely to file objections to any factual determinations of the Magistrate Judge will 20 be considered a waiver of a party’s right to appellate review of the findings of fact in an 21 order or judgment entered pursuant to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. See Rule 22 72, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 23 Dated this 12th day of March, 2018. 24 25 26 27 28 -8-

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?