Castillo v. Ryan et al

Filing 16

ORDER ADOPTING 14 Report and Recommendation. Petitioner's §2254 habeas petition is denied and this case is dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly and close the file in this matter. Signed by Judge Jennifer G Zipps on 6/28/13. (SMBE)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Carlos Vega Castillo, 10 Petitioner, 11 vs. 12 Charles L. Ryan, et al., 13 Respondents. 14 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 11-571-TUC-JGZ (LAB) ORDER 15 16 Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation issued by United States 17 Magistrate Judge Leslie A. Bowman. Judge Bowman recommends dismissing Petitioner's 18 habeas petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254. (Doc. 14.) Petitioner has filed an 19 objection to the Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 15.) 20 The Court reviews de novo the objected-to portions of the Report and 21 Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). The Court reviews for clear 22 error the unobjected-to portions of the Report and Recommendation. Johnson v. Zema 23 Systems Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999); see also Conley v. Crabtree, 24 14 F. Supp. 2d 1203, 1204 (D. Or. 1998). 25 In his Objection, Petitioner claims that the Magistrate Judge: (1) improperly failed to 26 consider his ex post facto claim which he raised “at every appropriate stage in State Court 27 ‘and then some’” (doc 15, p. 3) and (2) incorrectly dismissed his ineffective assistance of 28 counsel claim as procedurally barred. Petitioner asserts that he has exhausted his ex post 1 facto claim by presenting it to the trial court, Court of Appeals, and Supreme Court of 2 Arizona. Petitioner further contends that his counsel was ineffective by recommending that 3 he accept a plea agreement that violated the ex post facto clause of the United States 4 Constitution. 5 Both of Petitioner’s claims have been procedurally defaulted in state court, and 6 therefore are barred from review by a federal court. On April 27, 1998, pursuant to a plea 7 agreement, Petitioner was sentenced to ten years of imprisonment followed by a lifetime of 8 probation. (Doc. 9-1, Exh. C.) Within a year of his release from prison, Petitioner violated 9 his probation. (Doc. 9-1, Exh. D.) On February 7, 2008, Petitioner’s probation was revoked, 10 and he was sentenced to ten years of imprisonment. (Doc. 9-1, Exh. F.) Since returning to 11 prison, Petitioner has filed two Rule 32 petitions for post-conviction relief in Arizona. In his 12 first petition, Petitioner asserted six claims: (1) he was prejudiced by the introduction of 13 certain materials during trial; (2) he was denied his constitutional right to representation; (3) 14 recent Arizona Court of Appeals’ rulings constitute a significant change in the law that, if 15 applied to his case, would have entitled him to relief; (4) he received ineffective assistance 16 of counsel; (5) he did not intelligently, voluntarily, and knowingly enter into the plea 17 agreement; and (6) he was serving an incorrect sentence. (Doc. 9-4, Exh. N.) The state trial 18 court held that Petitioner’s claims were precluded as untimely except for the claim alleging 19 a significant change in the law. (Id.) The court denied his significant change in the law 20 claim on the merits. (Id.) Petitioner did not seek review of the trial court’s ruling. (Doc. 21 9-8, Exh. S.) 22 In his second petition, Petitioner asserted that the trial court had imposed an illegal 23 sentence in 1998 because a term of lifetime probation was not statutorily authorized for his 24 two preparatory dangerous crimes against children at the time he committed the offenses in 25 1996. (Id.) Petitioner also alleged that his trial counsel had been ineffective. (Id.) The trial 26 court held that Petitioner’s illegal sentence claim (ex post facto claim) was precluded because 27 he had failed to raise the argument in his first Rule 32 petition. (Doc. 9-8, Exh. R.) The trial 28 court also held that Petitioner’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim was precluded -2- 1 because it had been raised in his previous Rule 32 and dismissed as untimely. (Id.) The 2 Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s rulings. (Doc. 9-8, Exh. S.) 3 Because Petitioner’s claims were procedurally defaulted in state court, the Magistrate 4 correctly concluded that his claims were barred in federal court. See Ortiz v. Stewart, 149 5 F.3d 923, 931-32 (9th Cir. 1998) (Arizona’s rule of preclusion is regularly and consistently 6 applied, and therefore bars federal review of a procedurally defaulted state court claim). 7 Further, as found by the Magistrate Judge, Petitioner has neither demonstrated cause for the 8 default nor a fundamental miscarriage of justice if his claims are not reviewed. (Doc. 14 pp. 9 5-6.) As Petitioner’s objections do not undermine the analysis and proper conclusion reached 10 by Magistrate Judge Bowman, Petitioner’s objections are rejected. 11 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 12 (1) The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 14) is accepted and adopted. 13 (2) Petitioner's §2254 habeas petition is denied and this case is dismissed with 14 15 16 17 prejudice. (3) The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly and close the file in this matter. DATED this 28th day of June, 2013. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -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?