Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_08-cv-00137/USCOURTS-azd-4_08-cv-00137-1/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Santiago Alberto Altamirano,

Petitioner,

v.

Dora B. Schriro, et al.,

Respondents.

______________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV-08-137-TUC-DCB

ORDER

This matter was referred to the United States Magistrate Judge

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b) and the local rules of practice of this

Court for a Report and Recommendation (R&R) on the Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254. Before the Court is the

Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, which recommends that the

Petition be denied and dismissed. The Petitioner filed Substantive

Objections to the Report and Recommendation on October 14, 2008. 

PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS

Petitioner’s sole objection is that neither the Answer nor the

Recommendation addresses Petitioner’s amended Ground IV on the merits:

“the sentencing court abused its discretion by sentencing the Petitioner

outside constitutional limits creating an illegal sentencing which

constituted fundamental error, to violate Petitioner’s 5th, 6th, and 14th

Amendment’s rights to Due Process under the United States Constitution.”

(Objections at 3.) The thrust of Petitioner’s sentencing problem is that

Case 4:08-cv-00137-DCB Document 14 Filed 10/24/08 Page 1 of 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 2

he believes that two historical prior convictions were improperly used

to enhance his state sentence. (Objections at 4.) “Because the trial

court accepted defendant’s guilty pleas in all three cases at the same

time, none of the resulting convictions proceeded any others . . . ” and

hence could not be treated as historical priors. (Objections at 6.)

STANDARD OF REVIEW

When objection is made to the findings and recommendation of a

magistrate judge, the district court must conduct a de novo review.

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

DISCUSSION 

Petitioner was convicted in Pima County Superior Court, case #CR20040875, CR-20042130, and CR-20044278, of Aggravated Driving Under the

Influence. He was sentenced to a 2.5-year prison term in CR-20040875 and

10-year prison terms in CR-20042130 and CR-20044278; the terms in CR20044278 and CR-20042130 were to be served consecutively. As part of the

plea agreement, Petitioner admitted to two prior felony DUI convictions,

CR-20040875 and CR-20040835. During the sentencing, the Superior Court

found in aggravation that Petitioner had four prior felony convictions,

seven misdemeanor convictions, a pattern of alcohol abuse coupled with

driving which posed a risk to the community and four DUI arrests within

a ten-month time period. The Superior Court found in mitigation that

Petitioner had mental health problems, was a veteran, had physical health

problems, had made rehabilitation efforts, had family support, that the

offense was nonviolent, and that the Petitioner was remorseful. After

balancing aggravating and mitigating circumstances, the Superior Court

determined that the presumptive terms for sentencing were appropriate.

Case 4:08-cv-00137-DCB Document 14 Filed 10/24/08 Page 2 of 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 3

During post-conviction proceedings, Petitioner’s sentence was repeatedly

reviewed and upheld.

After a thorough analysis, the Report and Recommendation found

that, “In sum, Petitioner has failed to show either that the state courts

misapplied federal law or that the state courts’ ruling was unreasonable

based on the evidence presented. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).” (R&R at 11.)

Contrary to Petitioner’s assertions in his Objections, the Report and

Recommendation specifically addresses his concerns about the sentence

imposed.

“[A] federal court may not issue a habeas petition ‘with respect

to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court

proceedings' unless the state court decision: 1) ‘was contrary to, or

involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law,

as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States' or 2) ‘was based

on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence

presented in the State court proceeding.’” McCambridge v. Hall, 303 F.3d

24, 34 (1st Cir. 2002) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)). A decision is

“contrary to” clearly established federal law “if the state court arrives

at a conclusion opposite to that reached by [the Supreme Court] on a

question of law or if the state court decides a case differently than

[the Supreme Court] has on a set of materially indistinguishable facts.”

Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 412-413 (2000). A decision represents

an “unreasonable application” of clearly established federal law “if the

state court identifies the correct governing principle from [the Supreme

Court's] decisions but unreasonably applies that principle to the facts

of the prisoner's case.” Id. at 413. An “unreasonable application”

requires “some increment of incorrectness beyond error . . . The

Case 4:08-cv-00137-DCB Document 14 Filed 10/24/08 Page 3 of 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 4

increment need not necessarily be great, but it must be great enough to

make the decision unreasonable in the independent and objective judgment

of the federal court.” McCambridge, 303 F.3d at 36.

Petitioner asserts that the sentence imposed by the state court

violated his Due Process rights and was greater than necessary, which

deprived Petitioner of fundamental fairness. (Objections at 6.)

Basically, Petitioner urges that his sentence is excessive in relation

to the offenses committed. The Eighth Amendment “forbids only extreme

sentences that are ‘grossly disproportionate’ to the crime.” Solem v.

Helm, 463 U.S. 277, 288 (1983). Petitioner’s sentence is neither extreme

nor grossly disproportionate and does not violate the U.S. Constitution.

Habeas review of state court sentencing determinations is only

available when a Petitioner asserts that he was sentenced in violation

of the Constitution and, “[n]o federal constitutional issue is presented

where, as here, the sentence is within the range prescribed by state

law.” White v. Keane, 969 F.2d 1381, 1383 (2d Cir. 1992)(“Sentencing

decisions are not cognizable on habeas corpus review unless the sentence

imposed falls outside the range prescribed by state law.”). Petitioner's

sentence was within the range prescribed by Arizona law, hence there is

no basis for additional federal habeas review.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, after conducting a de novo review of the record,

IT IS ORDERED that the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation

(Doc. No. 10) in its entirety. The Objections raised by the Petitioner

are OVERRULED.

Case 4:08-cv-00137-DCB Document 14 Filed 10/24/08 Page 4 of 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 5

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

is DENIED and this action is DISMISSED with prejudice. Final Judgment

to enter separately. 

DATED this 24th day of October, 2008.

Case 4:08-cv-00137-DCB Document 14 Filed 10/24/08 Page 5 of 5