Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_00-cv-00118/USCOURTS-azd-2_00-cv-00118-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 535
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus - Death Penalty
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Ptn for Writ of H/C - Stay of Execution

---

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

 “Dkt.” refers to the documents in this Court’s case file.

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Richard Dean Hurles, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Dora B. Schriro, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-00-0118-PHX-RCB

DEATH PENALTY CASE

ORDER

Petitioner Richard Dean Hurles is a state prisoner sentenced to death. Before the

Court is Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration, which asks the Court to reconsider its

rulings on the procedural status of a number of his habeas claims. (Dkt. 74.)1

 Generally,

motions to reconsider are appropriate only if the Court “(1) is presented with newly

discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust,

or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah

County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). Petitioner contends that the

Court clearly erred in its resolution of the procedural status of claims 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7.

Because the Court did not clearly err, Petitioner’s motion will be denied.

With respect to Claim 1, Petitioner argues that the Court did not consider certain

arguments he made in support of cause to overcome procedural default. The Court did not

err. In Petitioner’s Traverse, he condensed and summarized for the Court’s convenience the

Case 2:00-cv-00118-DLR Document 84 Filed 10/19/06 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

2

 “ME” refers to the minute entries from Petitioner’s successive post-conviction relief

proceedings. 

- 2 -

procedural arguments he made for each individual claim. (See Dkt. 42 at 67.) With respect

to cause to overcome the procedural default of Claim 1, Petitioner asserted only ineffective

assistance of appellate counsel. (See id. at 69.) The Court considered and rejected this

argument. (Dkt. 73 at 15-16.) Reconsideration on this basis is denied. 

Similarly, Petitioner contends that the Court failed to consider the cause arguments

he presented regarding Claims 3, 4, and 5. (Dkt. 74 at 4-5.) The Court did not err. In

Petitioner’s Traverse, he failed to raise cause arguments to overcome procedural default with

respect to Claims 3, 4, and 5. (See Dkt. 42 at 73-84.) Reconsideration on this basis is denied.

Finally, Petitioner argues that the Court clearly erred in determining that Claims 6 and

7 were procedurally defaulted pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2(a)(3)

because, following a motion to clarify the post-conviction ruling (Dkt. 72 at 604), the postconviction court changed the basis of its ruling and concluded that Claims 6 and 7 were

precluded pursuant to Rule 32.2(a)(2) rather than Rule 32.2(a)(3). (Id.; ME at 52.)2

Petitioner contends that a state-court ruling based on Rule 32.2(a)(2) permits this Court’s

review of the merits of Claims 6 and 7. (Dkt. 74 at 5.) 

While the Court does not disagree with Petitioner that the post-conviction court

clarified its procedural ruling with respect to Claims 6 and 7, such clarification does not

entitle the claims to merits review by this Court because Petitioner did not take the

opportunity to fairly present Claims 6 and 7 to the Arizona Supreme Court in his Petition for

Review. (See Dkt. 72 at 1-1 thru 1-15.) To properly exhaust state remedies, the petitioner

must “fairly present” his claims to the state’s highest court in a procedurally appropriate

manner. See O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 848 (1999); see also 28 U.S.C. §

2254(b)(1)(A) (stating that a habeas petition shall not be granted unless the petitioner has

exhausted the remedies available in the state courts). Petitioner did not exhaust Claims 6 and

7 in state court. Therefore, Claims 6 and 7 are not entitled to review on the merits. 

Case 2:00-cv-00118-DLR Document 84 Filed 10/19/06 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 -

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED denying Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. (Dkt.

74.)

DATED this 19th day of October, 2006.

Case 2:00-cv-00118-DLR Document 84 Filed 10/19/06 Page 3 of 3