Howard v. Ryan et al
Filing
21
ORDER ADOPTING 18 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION as the findings of fact and conclusions of law by this Court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED and this action is hereby DISMISSED, and the Clerk of Court sh all enter judgment accordingly. If Petitioner appeals the denial of his petition for habeas relief, any request for certificate of appealability shall be denied based on the Courts determination of the claims presented, and based on the Courts finding that Petitioner has failed to make the requisite substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right on the grounds presented. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(C). Signed by Senior Judge Frank R Zapata on 8/4/14.(BAC)
1
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9
Christopher Howard,
10
Petitioner,
11
vs.
12
Charles L. Ryan, et al.,
Respondents.
13
14
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. CV 11-496 TUC-FRZ
ORDER
15
16
Before the Court for consideration is the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant
17
to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed by Petitioner Christopher Howard, pro se, and the Report and
18
Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, recommending the Court, after an independent
19
review of the record, dismiss the Petition with prejudice.
20
Petitioner entered into a plea agreement in July 2009 in the Superior Court for the
21
State of Arizona, Pima County, where he pleaded guilty to one charge of fraudulent scheme
22
and artifice and one charge of aggravating taking the identity of another. The trial court
23
sentenced Petitioner to concurrent terms totaling 6.5 years.
24
The Arizona Court of Appeals granted review, but denied relief and adopted the
25
decision of the trial court. Petitioner did not seek review of that decision by the Arizona
26
Supreme Court.
27
28
Furthermore, the trial court summarily denied any post-conviction relief sought by
Petitioner.
1
The present Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed on August 12, 2011, raises four
2
grounds for relief, including a failure by Petitioner’s trial lawyer to investigate email and
3
credit transactions, the introduction of evidence obtained as part of an unconstitutional search
4
and seizure, statements obtained in violation of his right to counsel, and ineffective assistance
5
of counsel by being urged to enter into a plea agreement, which are set forth in the Court’s
6
initial screening order (Doc. 3) and the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 18).
7
This matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Jacqueline M. Rateau, pursuant to the
8
provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), Rule 72, Fed.R.Civ.P., and Local Rules 72.1 and 72.2 of
9
the Rules of Practice of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, for
10
further proceedings and Report and Recommendation.
11
Magistrate Judge Rateau issued her Report and Recommendation, recommending that
12
the District Court dismiss the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus on the basis that Grounds
13
One, Two, and Three are unavailable as grounds for habeas relief due to Petitioner’s signing
14
of a written plea agreement. Furthermore, Petitioner has not properly exhausted the available
15
state remedies for Grounds One, Two, and Three and the grounds are therefore procedurally
16
barred from federal habeas review.
17
The Report and Recommendation also recommends that Ground Four be dismissed,
18
setting forth the facts of Petitioner plea and a thorough analysis regarding the legal basis for
19
determining the voluntariness of a guilty plea.
20
21
The Petitioner filed an Objection to the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 19)
challenging the Magistrate Judge’s findings.
22
The Court finds, after consideration of all the matters presented and an independent
23
review of the record herein, including the issues raised by the Petitioner in his objection, that
24
the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus shall be denied and this action shall be dismissed in
25
accordance with the Report and Recommendation. Accordingly,
26
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 18) is
27
hereby ACCEPTED AND ADOPTED as the findings of fact and conclusions of law by this
28
Court;
-2-
1
2
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1)
is DENIED and this action is hereby DISMISSED;
3
4
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment
accordingly.
5
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, if Petitioner appeals the denial of his petition for
6
habeas relief, any request for certificate of appealability shall be denied based on the Court’s
7
determination of the claims presented, and based on the Court’s finding that Petitioner has
8
failed to make the requisite substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right on the
9
grounds presented. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(C).1
10
11
DATED this 4th day of August, 2014.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
The Court “may issue a COA for any issue with respect to which petitioner makes
a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” Jennings v. Woodford, 290
F.3d. 1006, 1010 (9th Cir. 2002)(citing 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3)). The standard permits an
appeal where the petitioner can “demonstrate that the issues are debatable among jurists of
reason; that a court could resolve the issues [differently]; or that the questions are adequate
to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Id. (Citing Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880,
893 n.4, 103 S.Ct. 3383 (1983)).
-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?