Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02932/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02932-0/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

1

 Before the State courts, Petitioner claimed his conviction as an accomplice to an

aggravated assault violated State v. Phillips, 202 Ariz. 427, 46 P.3d 1048 (2002) (a defendant

may not be liable for felony murder under a theory of accomplice liability). 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Christopher L. Woods, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Dora B. Schriro, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 04-2932-PHX-EHC (LOA)

ORDER

On December 20, 2004, Petitioner filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus,

claiming that his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process was violated when he was

convicted of aggravated assault on an accomp lice theory, for which there was allegedly

insufficient evidence. [Dkt. 1]. On June 1, 2005, Respondents filed a Resp onse to the

Petition, contending that Petitioner had failed to exhaust his st at e remedies by failing to

raise his Fourteenth Amendment argument in his State court proceedings.1

 [Dkts. 7 & 8].

On June 9, 2005, Magistrat e Judge Lawrence O. Anderson ordered Petitioner to file a Reply,

addressing the contention that he failed to exhaust his State court remedies. [Dkt. 9]. On

August 2, 2005, Petitioner filed a Reply, arguing that he presented the substance of his

Fourteenth Amendment argument to the State courts. [Dkt. 11].

Case 2:04-cv-02932-EHC Document 21 Filed 01/10/06 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

On August 26, 2005, Magistrate Judge Anderson ordered Respondents to provide

supplemental briefing on the merits of Petitioner's due process claim. [Dkt. 13]. On

September 30, 2005, Respondents filed their Supplemental Memorandum, cont ending that

Petitioner's solicitation of, and assistance in, the armed robbery result ing in the aggravated

assault was sufficient evidence to convict Petitioner of aggravated assault on an

accomplice theory. [Dkt. 14]. Petitioner filed a Notice of Acknowledgement, stating that he

will not file a Response to the Supplemental Memorandum. [Dkts. 15 & 16].

On October 21, 2005, Magist rat e Judge Anderson issued a Report and

Recommendation [Dkt. 21], recommending t hat the Petition be denied because Petitioner

did not present his federal claim to the State courts and, alternatively, the evidence was

sufficient for the trier of fact to convict Petitioner as an accomplice to an aggravat ed

assault.

On November 28, 2005, Petitioner filed an Objection, for the first time claiming that

he was given ineffective assistance of counsel and that the prosecutor failed to disclose

the criminal record of the state's witnesses and the "deal's (sic) between state and

witness." [Dkt. 22]. The Court will not address grounds for granting for habeas corpus

relief not raised in the Petition for Habeas Corpus. See Rules Governing Section 2254

Cases, Rule 2(c)(1)("The petition must specify all the grounds for relief available to the

petitioner").

A district court judge reviews de novo the Report and Recommendat ion of a

Magistrate Judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).

The Court having reviewed the record de novo, adopts in full the Report and

Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and incorporates t he same as a part of this

Order.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is

adopted in full. [Dkt. 17].

//

Case 2:04-cv-02932-EHC Document 21 Filed 01/10/06 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petitioner's Pet it ion for a Writ of Habeas

Corpus is DENIED. [Dkt. 1].

DATED this 10th day of January, 2006.

Case 2:04-cv-02932-EHC Document 21 Filed 01/10/06 Page 3 of 3