Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01582/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01582-0/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

William Eugene Kemp, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

McWilliams, Warden; Attorney General of

the State of Arizona,

Respondents.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 06-1582-PHX-MHM (DKD)

ORDER

Petitioner William Eugene Kemp (“Petitioner”) has filed a pro se Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus ("Petition") under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Dkt.# 1). The matter was referred to

Magistrate Judge David K. Duncan who has issued a Report and Recommendation that

recommends that the Petition be denied. (Dkt.#9). Petitioner has not filed any objection to

the Report and Recommendation. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The district court must review the Magistrate Judge's findings and recommendations

de novo if objection is made but not otherwise. United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114,

1121 (9th Cir. 2003)(en banc). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C)("[a] judge of the court shall

make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings

or recommendations to which objection is made"). "Failure to object to a magistrate judge's

recommendation waives all objections to the judge's findings of fact." Jones v. Wood, 207

F.3d 557, 562 n.2 (9th Cir. 2000). 

Case 2:06-cv-01582-MHM Document 10 Filed 01/12/07 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

1

Blakely sets forth that the Sixth Amendment requires that "any fact that increases the

penalty for a crime beyond the statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved

beyond a reasonable doubt." Id. at 301 (quoting Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490

(2000)). 

2

As stated in the plea agreement, the presumptive sentence for trafficking in stolen

property is 6.5 years; the maximum is 13 years. (Dkt.#8. Exhibit A). 

3

Petitioner's prior conviction, as agreed upon by the parties, involves the Sale of

Dangerous Drugs, a class 2 felony, committed on July 11, 1995 in Maricopa County, CR97-

014001. Petitioner was represented by counsel. (Dkt.#8, Exhibit A). 

- 2 -

DISCUSSION

The Court has considered the pleadings and documents of record in this case and finds

itself in agreement with the Magistrate Judge that the Petition be denied and dismissed with

prejudice. Petitioner was convicted in Maricopa County Superior Court following a guilty

plea for trafficking of stolen property, with a prior felony conviction. Petitioner was

sentenced to an aggravated 10-year sentence. Petitioner contends that his sentence was

imposed in violation Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004) because he should have

been sentenced to the presumptive 6.5 years for a class 3 felony, instead of an aggravated 10-

year term.1

 2

As part of the guilty plea, Petitioner agreed to plead to trafficking stolen property with

a prior conviction.3

 (Dkt.#8, Exhibit A). The parties to the plea agreement agreed that

"Defendant shall be sentenced to the Arizona Department of Corrections for no less than 7

years and no longer than 10 years." (Id). Petitioner also agreed to a stipulated factual basis

which included an admission that he committed the offense for pecuniary gain. (Id. Exhibit

C, at 9,13). In accepting Petitioner's guilty plea, the sentencing judge found that "Defendant's

admission of the aggravating factor for pecuniary gain and the Court's finding of [a] prior

conviction satisfies Blakely v. Washington and supports the imposition of a slightly

aggravated term." (Id. Exhibit B, at 1, Minute Entry, 7/24/04 Sentencing); See also (Id.,

Exhibit C at 13, Tr., 7/24/04 Sentencing). After his sentencing, Petitioner filed a Notice of

Case 2:06-cv-01582-MHM Document 10 Filed 01/12/07 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 -

Post-Conviction Relief asserting the Blakely violation. (Id. Exhibit D). The trial court

dismissed the petition finding that the sentence was "Blakely compliant" as it relied upon

aggravating factors that they were either admitted by Defendant and/or prior convictions. (Id.

Exhibit I). The Arizona Court of Appeals dismissed Petitioner's petition for review without

comment. (Id. Exhibit K). 

This Court also finds that the trial court's sentence complies with Blakely

considerations. Specifically, "once a jury finds or a defendant admits a single aggravating

factor, the Sixth Amendment permits the sentencing judge to find and consider additional

factors relevant to the imposition of a sentence up to the maximum prescribed in that statute."

State v. Martinez, 210 Ariz. 578, 585 (2005); See also United States v. Booker, 125 S.Ct. 738,

748 (2005) (stating that jury must determine facts to raise a sentencing ceiling). In the instant

case, Petitioner's prior conviction alone, supports the sentencing judge's aggravated 10-year

sentence as opposed to the presumptive term of 6.5 years. 

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED adopting the Magistrate Judge's Report and

Recommendation in its entirety as the Order of the Court. (Dkt.#9).

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

and dismissed with prejudice. (Dkt.#1). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of the Court to enter judgment

accordingly. 

DATED this 9th day of January, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-01582-MHM Document 10 Filed 01/12/07 Page 3 of 3