Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-00165/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-00165-0/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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Arvine Hardwick, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Respondents. 

No. CV-14-0165-PHX-JAT (DKD)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

TO THE HONORABLE JAMES A. TEILBORG, SENIOR U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE: 

 Arvine Hardwick filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus on January 28, 2014, 

challenging his 1996 convictions in Mohave County Superior Court for six counts of 

child molestation, three counts of sexual conduct with a minor, two counts of public 

sexual indecency, and one count of sexual abuse. The trial court sentenced Hardwick to 

consecutive presumptive prison terms totaling 181 years. In Ground One, Hardwick 

argues that his fifth and fourteenth amendment rights were violated because he is actually 

innocent. In Ground Two, he argues that his fifth, sixth and fourteenth amendment rights 

were violated because both trial counsel and appellate counsel were ineffective. 

Respondents contend that Hardwick’s petition is untimely, and that he is not entitled to 

statutory or equitable tolling. Respondents also argue that Hardwick has not 

demonstrated actual innocence to excuse his untimely filing. The Court agrees and 

recommends that his petition be denied and dismissed with prejudice. 

Case 2:14-cv-00165-JAT Document 13 Filed 06/25/14 Page 1 of 7
- 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 

BACKGROUND 

The facts surrounding the convictions are summarized in the presentence 

investigation report:1

 

 On July 29, 1993, Eddie Alldredge brought his three 

minor daughters to the Mesa Police station and reported they 

were molested by forty-nine-year-old Arvine Hardwick. Mr. 

Alldredge indicated the girls were molested while they lived 

with their real mother, Linda Smith, and stepfather, Darin 

Smith, in the same house as Mr. Hardwick from January 1987 

until February 1992. The children’s stepmother, Jane 

[Alldredge], related fifteen-year-old Kristi told her about 

Arvine molesting her the previous night. Ms. Alldredge then 

began to worry that the other two girls may have been 

victimized so she sat down with thirteen-year-old Crystal and 

eleven-year-old Belinda individually and learned they too had 

been victims of molestation at the hands of Mr. Hardwick. 

 Crystal was interviewed and related the earliest 

incident occurred on her seventh birthday when Mr. 

Hardwick gave her a French kiss during her birthday party. 

She then related he exposed himself to her five times. Crystal 

stated that Mr. Hardwick had called her into his bedroom, 

closed the door behind her, and laid naked on the bed. He 

then told Crystal to watch him while he masturbated. After 

he ejaculated he tried to move her head down to his penis but 

she resisted and ran into another bedroom and told her sisters 

what happened. She did not tell her parents because she was 

scared. She also related Mr. Hardwick exposed himself on 

other occasions but she could not recall specific dates. She 

said Mr. Hardwick would watch her urinate and expose his 

penis and masturbate in front of her. He would also ask her 

to play with herself while she was on the toilet, but she 

refused. She stated she knew he touched her sisters because 

they told her that he did. She denied Mr. Hardwick had 

touched her and stated she thought that was because he knew 

she would have told her parents. 

 

1

 Presentence reports are an appropriate source for the facts underlying a defendant’s convictions. See State v. Rose, 297 P.3d 906 (2013). 

Case 2:14-cv-00165-JAT Document 13 Filed 06/25/14 Page 2 of 7
- 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 

 On July 29, 1993, eleven-year-old Belinda was 

interviewed and indicated she had been inappropriately 

touched by Arvine. She related there were “a lot of times” 

when Mr. Hardwick would force her to touch his penis in a 

massaging motion until he ejaculated. “The worst time” 

occurred when she was in the second or third grade and 

involved Mr. Hardwick putting her on his bed, placing a 

condom on his penis, and inserting his penis half-way into her 

vagina. Belinda reported she saw blood and attempted to 

scream, but Mr. Hardwick placed his hand over her mouth. 

She told her mother about what happened but her mother told 

her she was lying. She then related an incident that occurred 

when she was seven or eight years of age which involved the 

defendant placing his penis into her mouth. She also 

informed that Mr. Hardwick kissed her and used his tongue 

and performed cunnilingus and digital penetration to her 

vagina. Belinda also related Mr. Hardwick forced her to look 

at pictures of nude women by holding her jaw and forcing her 

eyes open. When asked about her sisters, Belinda stated on 

one occasion Mr. Hardwick forced all of them to touch his 

penis at the same time. She related Mr. Hardwick sometimes 

gave her $5.00 without reason and also told her if she told 

anyone she would get hurt. 

 Kristi was interviewed and related several incidents 

which occurred when she was eleven, twelve, and thirteen 

years old. She related Mr. Hardwick had forced her to 

perform fellatio on him for approximately one minute and 

then afterwards masturbated until he ejaculated in front of 

her. A second incident occurred at Mr. Hardwick’s business 

where her stepfather worked. As she was going to the 

bathroom, Mr. Hardwick entered the room, performed 

cunnilingus, and then made her masturbate him until he 

ejaculated. She also related incidents involving digital 

penetration and fellatio. 

 On July 30, 1993, Mr. Hardwick was arrested after a 

taped confrontation phone call was conducted during which 

he admitted digitally penetrating Kristi’s vagina and 

performing oral sex on her. 

(Doc. 10, Exh B). 

Case 2:14-cv-00165-JAT Document 13 Filed 06/25/14 Page 3 of 7
- 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 

 Hardwick was convicted following a jury trial; his conviction was reversed on 

appeal and he was granted a new trial (Id., Exh C). On June 20, 1996, Hardwick was 

convicted following a second jury trial; on August 28, 1996, he filed a timely notice of 

appeal (Id., Exh D-G). He raised four issues on appeal: (1) the trial court abused its 

discretion by permitting cross-examination of Hardwick; (2) the evidence was 

insufficient on two counts; (3) the trial court erred in denying Hardwick’s request for a 

Willits instruction; and (4) Hardwick was entitled to three additional days of presentence 

incarceration credit (Id., Exh H). On June 19, 1997, the court of appeals affirmed his 

convictions and modified his presentence incarceration credit to include an additional 

three days (Id., Exh K). The supreme court denied his petition for review on February 

18, 1998 (Id., Exh O). 

 On March 30, 1998, Hardwick filed a notice of post-conviction relief; on April 23, 

1998, appointed counsel filed a notice of completion of review and indicated she had 

found no colorable claims for post-conviction relief (Id., Exh Q-T). On January 25, 

1999, the trial court granted an extension allowing Hardwick until March 1, 1999 to file a 

pro per petition (Id., Exh V). On March 19, 1999, the trial court dismissed the postconviction proceeding for failure to file a petition (Id., Exh W). 

 Twelve years later, on June 27, 2011, Hardwick filed a second notice of postconviction relief, claiming newly-discovered evidence, ineffective assistance of counsel, 

insufficient evidence and lack of subject matter jurisdiction (Id., Exh X). On October 18, 

2011, the Court dismissed the petition as successive and untimely filed (Id., Exh Y). In 

doing so, the trial court ruled that Hardwick could not raise ineffective assistance, 

insufficient evidence, or lack of jurisdiction, because an untimely notice may only raise 

claims made pursuant to Rule 32.1(d), (e), (f), (g) or (h). In addition, the Court ruled that 

regarding his claim of newly-discovered evidence, Hardwick had “fail[ed] to articulate 

any such evidence,” and that his exhibit supporting a claim of newly-discovered evidence 

was “not a statement of facts but a series of arguments” (Id.). The trial court concluded 

that Hardwick had failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted (Id.). 

Case 2:14-cv-00165-JAT Document 13 Filed 06/25/14 Page 4 of 7
- 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 

 In 2012, the trial court allowed Hardwick’s third petition for post-conviction relief 

to go forward, finding that Hardwick had alleged a sufficiently colorable claim of actual 

innocence based upon an alibi defense (Id., Exh AA). Following the completion of 

briefing, the trial court denied the petition (Id., Exh BB-GG). Hardwick petitioned for 

review, raising a single claim of actual innocence (Id., OO). In January 2014, the court 

of appeals granted review, but denied relief. In doing so, the court of appeals ruled that 

all but the claim of newly discovered evidence was precluded because the other claims 

were either not raised in previous proceedings or were litigated in those proceedings. 

(Id., Exh HH). The court of appeals ruled that the trial court had not abused its discretion 

in finding that the evidence – a marriage license application 2

– was not newly discovered 

because Hardwick would have known of its existence at the time of trial. In addition, the 

court ruled that Hardwick had not established an actual innocence claim by clear and 

convincing evidence (Id.). The court noted that much of the evidence on which 

Hardwick relied, including the information contained in the marriage license application, 

was presented at trial, and faced with such evidence, the jury found him guilty of the 

offenses (Id.). The court concluded that in the absence of any additional facts sufficient 

to establish that no reasonable fact-finder would have found him guilty beyond a 

reasonable doubt, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying relief (Id.). 

DISCUSSION 

Hardwick was required to file his federal petition within one year of the “date on 

which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of 

the time for seeking such review.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A); Jimenez v. Quarterman, 

129 S.Ct. 681, 685 (2009). The period of limitations is statutorily tolled during the time 

in which a “properly filed application for State post-conviction or other collateral review 

with respect to the pertinent judgment or claim is pending” in the State courts. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2244(d)(2). Hardwick filed a timely notice of post-conviction relief on March 30, 

 

2

 Hardwick argued that the marriage license application showed his place of residence and when he lived there, and thus supported an alibi defense. However, he had already provided this information during his testimony, making the evidence cumulative. 

Case 2:14-cv-00165-JAT Document 13 Filed 06/25/14 Page 5 of 7
- 6 - 

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 

1998, and following a series of extensions, was granted until March 1, 1999 to file a pro 

se petition. On March 19, 1999, the trial court dismissed the post-conviction proceedings 

because Hardwick failed to file a petition. Absent any further tolling, he was required to 

file his petition within one year of that date, on or before March 19, 2000. His present 

petition, filed fourteen years after the expiration of the limitations period, is therefore 

untimely. 

Hardwick’s post-conviction petitions filed in 2011 and 2012 did not toll the 

limitations period. “[A] properly and timely filed petition in state court only tolls the 

time remaining in the federal limitation period.” See Jiminez v. Rice, 276 F.3d 478, 482 

(9th Cir. 2001). There can be no tolling following the expiration of the limitations period 

because “there is no period remaining to be tolled.” Webster v. Moore, 199 F.3d 1256, 

1259 (11th Cir. 2000). In addition, his 2011 and 2012 post-conviction petitions do not 

revive the expired limitations period. See Ferguson v. Palmateer, 321 F.3d 820, 823 (9th

Cir. 2003). 

 The Court also concludes that Hardwick is not entitled to equitable tolling. He has 

not demonstrated that he had been pursuing his rights diligently and the existence of any 

extraordinary circumstances which prevented him from timely filing his petition. Pace v. 

DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 418-19 (2005). In his petition, he asserts no reason for his 

untimely petition, and thus demonstrates no entitlement to equitable tolling. Ignorance of 

the law is not an extraordinary circumstance warranting equitable tolling. Rasberry v. 

Garcia, 448 F.3d 1150, 1154 (9th Cir. 2006). 

 A habeas petitioner can excuse his untimeliness by demonstrating actual 

innocence. McQuiggin v. Perkins, 133 S.Ct. 1924, 1928 (2013). It requires Hardwick to 

show that “in light of the new evidence, no juror, acting reasonably, would have voted to 

find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. Based upon the fact that the “new” 

evidence was cumulative to testimony Hardwick gave during trial, and the jury convicted 

him of the charged offenses, Hardwick cannot make such a showing. In addition, he 

appears to claim legal innocence, based upon a discrepancy in the dates of particular 

Case 2:14-cv-00165-JAT Document 13 Filed 06/25/14 Page 6 of 7
- 7 - 

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 

offenses, rather than factual innocence. A claim of legal innocence is insufficient to 

establish any miscarriage of justice. See Sawyer v. Whitley, 505 U.S. 333, 339-40 (1992). 

 IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that Arvine Hardwick’s petition for 

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

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that a Certificate of Appealability and 

leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal be denied because dismissal of the Petition 

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

debatable. 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 fourteen 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(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Thereafter, 

the parties have fourteen 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. Reyna-Tapia, 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 25th day of June, 2014. 

 

Case 2:14-cv-00165-JAT Document 13 Filed 06/25/14 Page 7 of 7