Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-01073/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-01073-1/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

Giuseppe Viola, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Laura Escapule, et al., 

Respondents. 

No. CV-14-1073-PHX-DJH

ORDER 

 This matter is before the Court on Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 

(the "Petition") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1) and the Report and 

Recommendation (“R&R”) issued by United States Magistrate Judge John Z. Boyle 

(Doc. 16). In 1990, the State of Arizona charged Petitioner with five counts of fraudulent 

schemes and artifices, but he failed to appear for a scheduled preliminary hearing in May 

1990 and absconded to Italy. (Doc. 16 at 3). At some point he returned to the United 

States and was apprehended in San Francisco in 2010. (Id.). A jury subsequently found 

Petitioner guilty of all five counts. (Doc. 16 at 4). The trial court then sentenced 

Petitioner, who had five prior felony convictions, to 18 years in prison on each count, 

with four of the prison terms to be served concurrently and one consecutively. (Id.). 

Thus, Petitioner's total sentence was 36 years in prison. (Id.). 

 Petitioner raised four claims for relief in the Petition, alleging that the trial court 

abused its discretion in violation of the Constitution by failing to grant a new trial; 

designating his trial as "complex"; allowing the presentation of his prior felony 

Case 2:14-cv-01073-DJH Document 17 Filed 08/18/15 Page 1 of 3
- 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 

convictions; and imposing an excessive sentence. (Doc. 16 at 5-6). After full 

consideration and analysis of the issues, Judge Boyle concluded that Petitioner failed to 

exhaust his state court remedies for the claims asserted in this action, and that he is now 

barred from doing so. (Id. at 1, 18). Accordingly, Judge Boyle recommends the Petition 

be denied and dismissed with prejudice. (Id. at 18). 

 Judge Boyle advised the parties that they had fourteen days to file objections and 

that the failure to file timely objections "may result in the acceptance of the Report and 

Recommendation by the district court without further review." (Doc. 16 at 19) (citing 

United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc)). The 

parties have not filed objections and the time to do so has expired. Absent any 

objections, the Court is not required to review the findings and recommendations in the 

R&R. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1989) (The relevant provision of the 

Federal Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), “does not on its face require any 

review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.”); Reyna-Tapia, 328 

F.3d at 1121 (same); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge must determine de novo 

any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.”). 

 Nonetheless, the Court has reviewed the R&R and agrees with its findings and 

recommendations. The Court will, therefore, accept the R&R and deny the Petition. See 

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) (“A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole 

or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”); 

Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3) (same). 

 Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Boyle's R&R (Doc. 16) is accepted and 

adopted as the order of this Court. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1) is denied and dismissed with prejudice. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing 

Section 2254 Cases, a Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis

Case 2:14-cv-01073-DJH Document 17 Filed 08/18/15 Page 2 of 3
- 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 appeal are denied because dismissal of the Petition is justified by a plain procedural 

bar and jurists of reason would not find the procedural ruling debatable. 

IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall terminate this action 

and enter judgment accordingly. 

 Dated this 18th day of August, 2015. 

Honorable Diane J. Humetewa

United States District Judge 

Case 2:14-cv-01073-DJH Document 17 Filed 08/18/15 Page 3 of 3