Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01030/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01030-0/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

*

 Pursuant to Rule 25(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Charles L. Ryan, the

Interim Director of the Arizona Department of Corrections, replaces Dora Schriro.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Michael Steel, ) No. CIV 08-1030-PHX-PGR (DKD)

)

Petitioner, ) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

)

vs. )

)

Charles L. Ryan,*

 et al., )

)

Respondents. )

)

)

TO THE HONORABLE PAUL G. ROSENBLATT, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE:

Petitioner Michael Steel filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his conviction for Possession of a Narcotic Drug for Sale, with

a prior felony conviction, and the trial court’s imposition of a 9.25-year term of

imprisonment. In his three grounds for habeas relief, he argues that his constitutional rights

were violated as follows: (1) the trial court failed to consider all mitigating evidence at

sentencing; (2) Steel was not mentally competent to enter into a plea agreement; and (3) his

trial counsel was ineffective. Respondents argue that the petition is untimely. The Court

agrees and recommends that the petition be denied and dismissed with prejudice.

Case 2:08-cv-01030-PGR Document 14 Filed 05/18/09 Page 1 of 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 - 2 -

Following the entry of Steel’s guilty plea on February 1, 2005 and his sentencing on

March 11, 2005, he filed a Notice of Post-Conviction Relief which the trial court dismissed

by minute entry as untimely:

Defendant filed on March 27, 2006, an untimely Notice of PostConviction Relief. He was sentenced on March 11, 2005 following his guilty

plea. He claims he has just obtained his mental health records and this “new

evidence” should have been presented to the Court in mitigation at sentencing.

He does not explain what these records show or provide a copy of any records.

As such, defendant has failed to provide the Court with sufficient information

to substantiate his claim of newly discovered evidence, as required by Rule

32.2(b), Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED dismissing defendant’s Notice of PostConviction Relief.

(Doc. #8, Exh D).

Steel filed a second Notice of Post-Conviction Relief on August 22, 2206. On September

8, the trial court also dismissed that notice as untimely:

Defendant filed on August 22, 2006, an untimely Notice of PostConviction Relief and Petition for Post-Conviction Relief. He was sentenced

on March 11, 2005 following his guilty plea. Rule 32.4(a), Arizona Rules of

Criminal Procedure, provides that the notice must be filed within 90 days of

entry of judgment and sentencing, and that any notice not timely filed may

only raise claims pursuant to Rule 32.1(d),(e), (f), or (h).

Defendant claims that he was incompetent at the time he committed the

crime, entered his guilty plea and was sentenced, and that his attorney

provided ineffective assistance. These claims fall under rule 32.1(a) and

therefore are not within the exceptions that excuse defendant from failing to

timely pursue rule 32 relief.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED dismissing defendant’s Notice and

Petition for Post-Conviction Relief.

(Minute Entry, 9/08/06, CR2004022451 available at http:www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/

docket/minute entries).

In order to be timely, Steel was required to file his federal petition within one year of

the time his conviction became final “by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of

the time for seeking such review.” See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A). However, because Steel

pleaded guilty, he waived the right to seek direct review. He was therefore entitled to bring

an “of-right” post-conviction relief proceeding under Rule 32.1 of the Arizona Rules of

Case 2:08-cv-01030-PGR Document 14 Filed 05/18/09 Page 2 of 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 - 3 -

Criminal Procedure within 90 days of the entry of judgment and sentencing. “The time

during which a properly filed application for post-conviction or other collateral review with

respect to the pertinent judgment or claim is pending shall not be counted toward any period

of limitation." See 2244(d)(2). A review of the Maricopa County Superior Court docket

indicates that Steel had nothing pending in state court from March11, 2005, until he filed his

Notice of Post-Conviction Relief on March 27, 2006 - a period of 382 days. Because Steel

was unable to provide the trial court with sufficient information to substantiate his claim of

newly discovered evidence, the trial court concluded that he did not satisfy the requirements

for an exception that excuses a defendant from timely filing. Because Steel’s notice was

dismissed as untimely, it was not properly filed and did not toll the federal limitations period.

See Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 417 (2005). The trial court ruled similarly

concerning his second Notice of Post-Conviction Relief, finding that it was untimely and did

not fall within one of the exceptions that excuse the requirement of timely filing. Because

neither of Steel’s petitions tolled the limitations period, it commenced on March 12, 2005,

and expired on March 11, 2006. Steel’s federal petition, filed on June 2, 2008, two years and

three months past the expiration of the limitations period, is therefore untimely.

Once the limitations period lapsed, Steel could not "restart" the period by filing a state

court action that would have tolled the limitations period, had it been timely filed. See

Ferguson v. Palmateer, 321 F.3d 820, 823 (9th Cir. 2003). Finally, assuming that federal

courts have the authority to create equitable exceptions to jurisdictional time limitations set

by Congress, see Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (2007), Steel is not entitled to equitable

tolling. He has not shown extraordinary circumstances beyond his control which made it

impossible for him to timely file: that he diligently pursued his rights and that some

"extraordinary circumstance stood in his way." Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 418

(2005).

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that Michael Steel’s petition for writ of

habeas corpus be denied and dismissed with prejudice (Doc. #1).

Case 2:08-cv-01030-PGR Document 14 Filed 05/18/09 Page 3 of 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 - 4 -

This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth

Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of

Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the district court’s judgment. The

parties shall have ten days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within

which to file specific written objections with the Court. See, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Rules

72, 6(a), 6(e), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Thereafter, the parties have ten days within

which to file a response to the objections. Failure timely to file objections to the Magistrate

Judge's Report and Recommendation may result in the acceptance of the Report and

Recommendation by the district court without further review. See United States v. ReynaTapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Failure timely to file objections to any factual

determinations of the Magistrate Judge will be considered a waiver of a party’s right to

appellate review of the findings of fact in an order or judgment entered pursuant to the

Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. See Rule 72, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

DATED this 18th day of May, 2009.

Case 2:08-cv-01030-PGR Document 14 Filed 05/18/09 Page 4 of 4