Jefferson v. Ryan et al

Filing 26

ORDER - IT IS ORDERED overruling the Objections (Doc. 24 ) and adopting in whole the R&R (Doc. 22 ). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying and dismissing with prejudice the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1 ). T he Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly and close this matter. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Petitioner's Application for Certificate of Appealability (Doc. 25 ) and leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this matter. Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right in his claims for relief. (See document for further details). Signed by Judge John J Tuchi on 3/8/19. (LAD)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Michael Anthony Jefferson,
Petitioner,

10
11

ORDER

v.

12

No. CV-17-04197-PHX-JJT (ESW)

Charles L. Ryan, et al.,

13

Respondents.

14
15

At issue is the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 22) (“R&R”) submitted by

16

United States Magistrate Judge Eileen S. Willett in this matter recommending that the

17

Court deny and dismiss with prejudice the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to

18

28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1). Petitioner has filed timely Objections to the R&R (Doc. 24), as

19

well as an Application for Certificate of Appealability from the District Court (Doc. 25).

20

Upon consideration of all of the above, the Court will overrule the Objections, adopt the

21

R&R and dismiss the Petition.

22

Judge Willett’s R&R thoroughly and exhaustively analyzed each of the five bases

23

on which Petitioner claimed ineffective assistance of his former counsel in the underlying

24

matter, and correctly concluded that none of those five claims met the standard for

25

ineffective assistance set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). For the

26

reasons set forth in abundant detail in the R&R, Judge Willett correctly concludes that in

27

none of the five instances argued does Petitioner satisfy either prong of Strickland: there is

28

no showing of either objectively deficient performance by counsel or prejudice. Indeed in

1

Grounds Four and Five, Petitioner’s proffered courses of action all would have been

2

outright futile. To wit: the fruits of a search that Petitioner had to consent to as a condition

3

of probation (Ground Four) cannot as a matter of law be suppressed as unconstitutionally

4

obtained. Similarly, it is hornbook law that jail calls (Ground Five) are not testimonial in

5

nature and therefore their introduction into evidence at trial does not violate the

6

confrontation clause. Moreover, Judge Willett correctly concluded that the state court’s

7

own application of the Strickland standard was not unreasonable.

8

Petitioner’s Objections merely re-argue precisely what he stated in his Petition.

9

They raise nothing that calls into question Judge Willett’s reasoning. And they similarly

10

ignore the law set forth in the R&R. Accordingly,

11
12

IT IS ORDERED overruling the Objections (Doc. 24) and adopting in whole the
R&R (Doc. 22).

13

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying and dismissing with prejudice the Petition

14

for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1). The Clerk of Court shall

15

enter judgment accordingly and close this matter.

16

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Petitioner’s Application for Certificate of

17

Appealability (Doc. 25) and leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this matter. Petitioner

18

has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right in his claims for

19

relief.

20

Dated this 8th day of March, 2019.

21
22

Honorable John J. Tuchi
United States District Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28

-2-