Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01380/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01380-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Michael Emerson Correll, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Respondents.

No. CV-13-01380-PHX-SMM

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 1.) The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge 

John Z Boyle for a Report and Recommendation (“R & R”). (Doc. 21.) On October 15, 

2015, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation with this Court. (Doc. 

37.) Immediately after the Magistrate Judge filed his R & R, Petitioner requested an 

extension of time to file his objection (Doc. 38), which the Court granted. (Doc. 40.) 

Petitioner then timely filed his objections to the R &R (Doc. 41), to which Defendants 

have replied (Doc. 42). 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

 The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 

recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see Baxter v. 

Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991). When reviewing a Magistrate Judge’s R & 

R, this Court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to 

Case 2:13-cv-01380-SMM Document 43 Filed 02/11/16 Page 1 of 5
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

which objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the 

findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); 

see also Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991) (citing Britt v. Simi 

Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983)). 

DISCUSSION1

 

 Having reviewed the R & R of the Magistrate Judge, the Court concludes that 

Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus should be denied. The Court hereby 

incorporates and adopts the Magistrate Judge’s R & R. 

 The Court will briefly address Petitioner’s Objections. In his Petition for Writ of 

Habeas Corpus, Petitioner raised twenty-one (21) grounds for relief. (Doc. 6 at 2-3.) 

Now, Petitioner makes only two (2) specific Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s 

findings, those dealing with the issues of double jeopardy and ineffective assistance of 

appellate counsel. (Doc. 41.) As to the other nineteen (19) claims, Petitioner states that, 

The claims not argued here, I fully include in my objection not to be 

dismissed as recommended. My not putting each claim in this objection 

argument is simply to covience [sic] the Court and in no way should be 

seen as conceding any part of the Habeas Petition to the Magistrate[’]s 

recommendation. 

(Id. at 2.) 

 The Court finds this general objection inadequate and not worthy of review. Under 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, the district judge must review de novo those portions 

of the R & R that have been “properly objected to.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 (b). A proper 

objection requires “specific written objections to the proposed findings and 

recommendations.” Id. (emphasis added); see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). One purpose of this 

requirement is judicial economy—to permit magistrate judges to hear and resolve matters 

not objectionable to the parties. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). Because 

de novo review of an entire R & R would defeat the efficiencies intended by Congress, a 

 

 1The factual and procedural history of this case is set forth in the Magistrate 

Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 279). 

Case 2:13-cv-01380-SMM Document 43 Filed 02/11/16 Page 2 of 5
- 3 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

general objection “has the same effect as would a failure to object.” Warling v. Ryan, No. 

CV 12-01396-PHX-DGC, 2013 WL 5276367, at *2 (D. Ariz. Sept. 19, 2013) (quoting 

Howard v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991)). As a 

result, the Court has no obligation to review Petitioner’s general objection to the R & R. 

See Thomas, 474 U.S. at 149 (no review is required for “any issue that is not the subject 

of an objection.”). 

 The Court will now turn to Petitioner’s specific objections. Petitioner first objects 

to the Magistrate Judge’s findings regarding his complaint that his right to be free from 

double jeopardy was violated when the state court ordered he serve consecutive sentences 

on Counts 1, 2, and 3. The Arizona Court of Appeals determined that Petitioner’s original 

sentences, under state law, were not designated as concurrent sentences. State v. Correll, 

No. 1 CA-CR 11-0188, 2011 WL 6747411, at *3 (Ariz. Ct. App. Dec. 22, 2011). 

Petitioner adamantly argues to the contrary, asserting that the Court of Appeals judge 

misapplied Arizona sentencing laws. The Magistrate Judge found that “[f]ederal habeas 

relief is not available for alleged errors in the interpretation or application of state law, 

including statutes regarding imposition of sentences.” (Doc. 37 at 16-17.) This Court 

agrees. Federal courts cannot provide relief from the misapplication or misinterpretation 

of state laws. Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-8 (1991) (stating that “federal habeas 

corpus relief does not lie for errors of state law”); see, e.g., Christian v. Rhode, 41 F.3d 

461, 469 (9th Cir. 1994). 

 Next, Petitioner objects to the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that he was not 

denied effective assistance of appellate counsel. Petitioner claims that appellate counsel 

was ineffective for failing discuss with him what he thought to be appealable issues, 

including prosecutorial misconduct and the right to confront/cross-examine the state’s 

witness at sentencing. (Doc 1 at 28.) Petitioner also claims that appellate counsel did not 

thoroughly review the record as evidenced by her subsequently filing an Anders Brief 

because she found no appealable issues. (Id. at 28.) Both the Magistrate Judge and the 

Arizona Court of Appeals concluded that there was no prosecutorial misconduct and that 

Case 2:13-cv-01380-SMM Document 43 Filed 02/11/16 Page 3 of 5
- 4 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Petitioner did not possess the right to cross-examination at sentencing, meaning appellate 

counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise those issues on appeal. This Court agrees. 

Having reviewed the record, the Court concludes that these claims were meritless. 

Regardless of Petitioner’s opinion on the matter, appellate counsel was not required to 

raise meritless claims on appeal. See Sexton v. Cozner, 679 F.3d 1150, 1157 (9th Cir. 

2012) (“Counsel is not necessarily ineffective for failing to raise even a nonfrivolous 

claim, so clearly we cannot hold counsel ineffective for failing to raise a claim that is 

meritless.” (citations omitted)). Therefore, the Court finds that Petitioner is not entitled to 

relief on this claim. 

 Having reviewed the legal conclusions of the R & R of the Magistrate Judge, and 

the objections having been made by Petitioner thereto, the Court finds that the Magistrate 

Judge adequately addressed all of Petitioner's arguments. Therefore, the Court hereby 

incorporates and adopts the Magistrate Judge’s R & R. 

CONCLUSION

 Accordingly, for the reasons set forth, 

 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Court adopts the Report and 

Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. (Doc. 37.) 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING Petitioner’s Motion for Evidentiary 

Hearing. (Doc. 34.) 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas 

Corpus is DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, terminating this case. The 

Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a Certificate of Appealability and leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis on appeal are DENIED because the dismissal was justified by 

/// 

/// 

/// 

Case 2:13-cv-01380-SMM Document 43 Filed 02/11/16 Page 4 of 5
- 5 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

a plain procedural bar and jurists of reason would not find the procedural ruling 

debatable. 

 Dated this 10th day of February, 2016. 

Honorable Stephen M. McNamee

Senior United States District Judge

Case 2:13-cv-01380-SMM Document 43 Filed 02/11/16 Page 5 of 5