Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00388/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00388-1/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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Leroy Wiggins 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Charles L. Ryan, et al. 

Respondents.

No. CV-12-00388-PHX-DGC

ORDER 

 On May 1, 2003, Petitioner pled guilty in Maricopa County Superior Court to 

three counts of sale or transportation of narcotic drugs, all class two felonies, and 

admitted two prior felony convictions in exchange for having the remaining 16 felony 

counts against him dismissed and a third prior felony conviction not counted towards his 

sentence. Doc. 16 at 1-2. On December 10, 2004, the state court sentenced Petitioner to 

the presumptive term of 15.75 years in prison for each of the three counts, with the first 

two terms to run concurrently and the third to run consecutively, for a total of 31.5 years. 

Id. at 2. 

 On October 25, 2011, more than six years after the deadline for filing an action for 

state post-conviction relief, Petitioner filed a notice of post-conviction relief under 

Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32, asserting that (1) he was coerced into a plea 

agreement in violation of his Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights, (2) his 

counsel was ineffective because she knew he was coerced and she failed to file a timely 

action seeking post-conviction relief, and (3) the untimeliness of his notice should be 

excused because he had new information and the untimeliness was not his fault. Id. at 2-

Case 2:12-cv-00388-DGC Document 18 Filed 10/24/12 Page 1 of 4
- 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 

3; see Doc. 14-1 at 62-64. The state court summarily dismissed Petitioner’s action as 

untimely on November 1, 2011, finding that Petitioner had not asserted new facts or 

shown any diligence in filing his petition. Doc. 16 at 3. 

 On February 2, 2012, Petitioner filed a petition for review with the Arizona Court 

of Appeals that reasserted his claims and also argued that he suffered prosecutorial 

misconduct in violation of his Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Id.

at 3-4. The Arizona Court of Appeals denied the petition as untimely, and Petitioner did 

not seek review by the Arizona Supreme Court. Id. at 4. 

 On February 23, 2012, Petitioner filed a pro se action seeking federal habeas relief 

under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Doc. 1. Petitioner asserts that (1) the Arizona Court of Appeals 

erred when it dismissed his petition for review as untimely, (2) he was coerced into 

accepting a plea agreement, (3) he was subjected to prosecutorial misconduct in violation 

of his Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights, (4) the trial court abused its 

discretion when it sentenced him using “double-counting” of his prior conviction in 

violation of Arizona law, (5) he was subjected to ineffective assistance of counsel in 

violation of his Sixth Amendment rights, (6) the Arizona Court of Appeals violated his 

right to due process when it dismissed his petition for review as untimely, and (7) the trial 

court violated his due process rights when it dismissed his notice of post-conviction 

relief. Docs. 1 at 6-12; 1-1 at 9-15. 

 On August 14, 2012, United States Magistrate Judge Mark E. Aspey issued a 

Report and Recommendation (“R&R”). Doc. 16. The R&R recommends that the Court 

deny the petition with prejudice because it is barred by the applicable statute of 

limitations for federal habeas relief, Petitioner’s untimely filing of the state court action 

for post-conviction relief did not re-start the already-expired statute of limitations, and 

Petitioner has not met the standard for equitable tolling because he has not shown that 

extraordinary circumstances prevented him from timely filing or that he was actually 

innocent of the crimes. Doc. 16 at 5-10. Judge Aspey also found that Petitioner’s claims 

are procedurally defaulted because Petitioner did not first present them in a timely 

Case 2:12-cv-00388-DGC Document 18 Filed 10/24/12 Page 2 of 4
- 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 

manner before the state court, and that he has not shown cause or prejudice arising from 

his failure to present his claims or that he is factually innocent so that a fundamental 

miscarriage of justice would result if his claims are not heard. Id. at 10-18. Judge Aspey 

additionally found that Petitioner’s fourth claim, that he was over-sentenced under state 

law due to “double-counting,” is not a cognizable claim in any event because federal 

habeas relief is not available for alleged errors in the application of state law. Id. at 18. 

Petitioner filed objections to the R&R on August 27, 2012. Doc. 17. For the reasons that 

follow, the Court will accept the R&R and deny Petitioner’s petition. 

II. Standard of Review. 

 A party may file specific written objections to an R&R’s proposed findings and 

recommendations. The Court must undertake de novo review of those portions of the 

R&R to which specific objections are made. The Court may accept, reject, or modify the 

findings or recommendations in the R&R. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

III. Analysis. 

 Petitioner objects to Judge Aspey’s findings “for the reasons already stated in the 

Habeas Petition as well as in the Reply to Respondent’s Limited Answer.” Doc. 17 at 2-

4. He makes no specific objections. In effect, Petitioner asks the Court to conduct a de 

novo review of his claims, thereby duplicating the work of the magistrate judge. This 

defeats Congress’ purpose in providing for magistrate judges to assist the district courts 

in discharging the heavy workload of the federal judiciary. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 

147-152 (1985); see Sullivan v. Schriro, No. CV-04-1517, 2006 WL 1516005 (D. Ariz. 

May 30, 2006). Judge Aspey has addressed each of Petitioner’s claims and thoroughly 

discussed the reasons they are untimely and procedurally defaulted and why claim four 

presents an invalid ground for federal habeas relief. Judge Aspey addressed Petitioner’s 

failure to show that he is entitled to equitable tolling or that he meets the requirements for 

having his claims heard on the merits despite his procedural default. 

 Because Petitioner does not make specific objections to Judge Aspey’s findings 

and recommendations as required by 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1), the Court will deem his 

Case 2:12-cv-00388-DGC Document 18 Filed 10/24/12 Page 3 of 4
- 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 

objection ineffective and will accept the R&R. This ruling comports with the clear 

language of Rule 72(b) that a district judge “shall make a de novo determination . . . of 

any portion of the magistrate judge's disposition to which specific written objection has 

been made[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2) (emphasis added); see Sullivan, 2006 WL 

1516005 at *1. The Court is relieved of any obligation to review a general objection to 

the R&R. See Thomas, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (no review at all is required for “any issue that 

is not the subject of an objection.”); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 

(9th Cir. 2003) (same). 

 IT IS ORDERED: 

 1. Magistrate Judge Mark E. Aspey’s R&R (Doc. 16) is accepted. 

 2. Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1) is denied. 

 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate this action. 

 Dated this 24th day of October, 2012. 

Case 2:12-cv-00388-DGC Document 18 Filed 10/24/12 Page 4 of 4