Owens v. Ryan et al

Filing 39

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 36 . The Objections (Doc. 37 ) raised by the Petitioner are OVERRULED. It is further ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED on all claims but for claim 14. The Petition is GRANTED on claim 14, thereby overturning the conviction and sentence on Count 7 of the state court Indictment. This action is remanded to the state court for resentencing based on this Order. Signed by Senior Judge David C Bury on 6/17/16. (KAH)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
Timothy Kevin Owens,

9
10
11
12
13

)
)
Petitioner,
)
v.
)
)
)
Charles L. Ryan, et al.,
)
)
Respondents.
)
______________________________________ )

CV-14-2443-TUC-DCB

ORDER

14
This matter was referred to the United States Magistrate Judge

15
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B) and the local rules of practice of

16
this Court for a Report and Recommendation (R&R) on the Petition for Writ

17
of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1). Before the Court is the Magistrate Judge’s

18
Report and Recommendation (Doc. 36). The Magistrate Judge recommends to

19
the Court that relief may be granted as to one claim with denial of the

20
remaining claims.

The Petitioner filed Objections (Doc. 37) and the

21
Respondents filed a Reply (Doc. 38).

22
STANDARD OF REVIEW

23
When objection is made to the findings and recommendation of a

24
magistrate judge, the district court must conduct a de novo review.

25
United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003).

26
27
28

1
2

PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS
Petitioner generally objects to all of the legal and evidentiary

3

conclusions

4

preclusion as to grounds 9-13, 15-18, 19-22 (Doc. 37 at 1, 7, 10, 11,

5

13); (2) finding procedural default (Doc. 37 at 2); (3) failure to

6

conduct an evidentiary hearing (Doc. 37 at 3); and, (4) finding claim 7

7

did not have a reasonable likelihood of success (Doc. 37 at 6).

contained

8
9

in

the

Report

and

Recommendation:

(1)finding

DISCUSSION
The Court finds that the Report and Recommendation is thorough and

10

well-considered.

11

Recommendation.

12

claims with no additional specific examples of error.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

The Respondents have no Objections to the Report and
Petitioner’s Objections reiterate all of the original

Owens was convicted in the Superior Court of Pima County of
twenty-two felonies: illegally conducting an enterprise,
conspiracy
to
commit
unlawful
possession
and/or
transportation of a dangerous drug for sale, six counts of
possession of a dangerous drug for sale, possession of a
dangerous drug, possession of a motor vehicle with an
altered serial number or identification number, possession
of a deadly weapon during the commission of a felony drug
offense, possession of drug paraphernalia, three counts of
use of a wire communication in a drug-related transaction,
attempted unlawful use of a means of transportation, firstdegree burglary, kidnapping, two counts of soliciting
threats and intimidation, solicitation to commit kidnapping,
and solicitation to commit first-degree murder. (Doc. 13,
Ex. UU at 1-2.)
(R&R at 1-2.)
The R&R was resolved without a hearing and this Court agrees that

23

none was required. (R&R at 47.)

24

3, 5, 6, 9-18, and 20 are procedurally defaulted. (R&R at 14.)

25

Court agrees that: Claim 1 is barred from review; Claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 9-

26

13, 15-18, and 20 are procedurally defaulted and Petitioner has not

27

established cause and prejudice or a fundamental miscarriage of justice

28

2

The R&R properly found that Claims 2,
This

1

to overcome the defaults; Claims 6, 11, 20, and the in effective

2

assistance of counsel (IAC) portions of Claims 9, 12, 13, and 15-18 fail

3

on the merits; Claims 4, 7, and 8 are properly exhausted but lack merit;

4

and, Claims 19, 21 and 22 are not legally cognizable, in part, and lack

5

merit, in part. The Court will adopt the R&R and will deny Claims 1-13

6

and 15-22.

7

The Court will also adopt the recommendation that Claim 14 is

8

procedurally defaulted, but that Petitioner has established cause and

9

prejudice to overcome the default. The Court finds Petitioner is entitled

10

to relief on Claim 14. This Court will grant the writ as to this claim,

11

which results in overturning the conviction and sentence on Count 71 of

12

the Indictment, as follows:

13

The Arizona Court of Appeals holds that when a defendant is
sentenced twice for the same offense, one of the sentences
must be vacated even if they were imposed concurrently and
did not increase the length of imprisonment. See State v.
Brown, 177 P.3d 878, 882-83, 217 Ariz. 617, 621-22 (Ct. App.
2008).

14
15
16
17
18
19
20

In finding that the underlying claims of trial and appellate
IAC are meritorious, the Court necessarily finds that PCR
counsel was deficient in failing to raise these substantial
claims. See Detrich v. Ryan, 740 F.3d 1237, 1245-46 (9th
Cr 21) Teeoe teei cuet ecs tedfuto teICprino Cam1.I.Ad te
i. 03. hrfr, hr s as o xue h eal f h A oto f li 4 d n, h
Court finds it
wins on the merits.
(R&R at 28.)

21
1

27

Petitioner alleged trial and appellate counsel were ineffective for
failing to raise the prohibition against double jeopardy as to Count 33,
which became Count 7 in the indictment presented to the jury. The court
entered judgment on Count 7 as possession of a dangerous drug for sale
committed on November 7, 2004, not importation. (Doc. 13, Ex. MM at 4-5.)
The court entered judgment for the same crime as to Count 8. (Id. at 5.)
Ultimately, the Court sentenced Petitioner twice for these duplicate
offenses, not for one count of possession and one count of importation.
(Id. at 14; Ex. NN at 6-7.) Petitioner’s sentences for Counts 7 and 8
constitute multiple punishments for the same offense, which is
unquestionably precluded by the double jeopardy clause. See Brown v.
Ohio, 432 U.S. 161, 165 (1977). (Doc. 36 at 26-27.)

28

3

22
23
24
25
26

1
2

CONCLUSION

3

Accordingly, after conducting a de novo review of the record,

4

IT IS ORDERED that the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation

5

(Doc. 36) in its entirety.

6

Petitioner are OVERRULED.

7

The Objections (Doc. 37) raised by the

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

8

is DENIED on all claims but for claim 14.

9

claim 14, thereby overturning the conviction and sentence on Count 7 of

The Petition is GRANTED on

10

the state court Indictment.2

11

for resentencing based on this Order. Clerk’s Office to enter Judgment.

This action is remanded to the state court

DATED this 17th day of June, 2016.

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

2

27

After a 7-day jury trial, the state court jury convicted Petitioner
of all 22 counts alleged in the indictment. (Exhibit JJ; Exhibit EE, at
37–44.) The jury also found all of the state’s sentencing enhancement
allegations true, beyond a reasonable doubt. (Id.) On February 12, 2007,
the state trial court sentenced Petitioner to six concurrent life
sentences without parole eligibility for 25 years (Counts 3, 7–8, 19–21)
and 16 lesser prison terms, which ran concurrently with the life
sentences. (Exhibit NN; Exhibit MM, at 13–18.) (Doc. 13 at 23.) Thus,
the result here is that, in all likelihood, Petitioner will serve five
rather than six concurrent life sentences without parole eligibility for
25 years.

28

4

23
24
25
26