Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01519/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01519-1/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

George Melendez Estrada, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Dora B. Schriro, et al., 

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-06-1519-PHX-ROS

ORDER

On June 18, 2007, Magistrate Judge Michelle H. Burns issued a Report and

Recommendation (R&R) recommending the petition for writ of habeas corpus be denied.

Petitioner filed objections. For the following reasons, the R&R will be adopted in full and

the petition will be denied.

Petitioner raised two claims in his petition for writ of habeas corpus. First, Petitioner

claimed that the jury instructions violated his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

Second, Petitioner believed that the imposition of an aggravated sentence violated his Sixth

and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The Magistrate Judge concluded Petitioner’s first claim

was procedurally defaulted and the second claim failed on its merits. Petitioner timely filed

his objections. 

The Court "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). It is "clear that the

Case 2:06-cv-01519-ROS Document 21 Filed 08/03/07 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

district judge must review the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations de novo if

objection is made, but not otherwise." United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121

(9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original). In this case, Petitioner objected to both

findings by the Magistrate and the Court must review the matters de novo.

Having reviewed the matters, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that

Petitioner did not properly present his jury instructions claim as a claim premised on federal

law. Petitioner never explicitly stated his claim was based on federal law and the alleged

error was presented as an error under state law. Lyons v. Crawford, 232 F.3d 666, 668 (9th

Cir. 2001). Therefore, the claim is procedurally defaulted. The Court also agrees with the

Magistrate Judge that Petitioner’s second claim fails on its merits. Based on his prior felony

convictions, Petitioner’s sentences were not beyond the statutory maximum permitted by the

jury’s verdict.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 17) is ADOPTED and this

action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

DATED this 3rd day of August, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-01519-ROS Document 21 Filed 08/03/07 Page 2 of 2