Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01891/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01891-0/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 

Robert Johannes Jonge Vos,

Petitioner, 

v. 

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Respondents.

No. CV-13-1891-PHX-DJH (DKD)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

TO THE HONORABLE DIANE J. HUMETEWA, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE: 

 Robert Johannes Jonge Vos filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus challenging 

his conviction and sentence in Maricopa County Superior Court for two felonies. His 

Petition raises three grounds for relief: ineffective assistance of counsel, subject matter 

jurisdiction, and prosecutorial misconduct. As explained below, the Court recommends 

that Vos’ petition be denied and dismissed with prejudice. 

BACKGROUND

 Vos was indicted in Maricopa County Superior Court for 11 counts of sexual 

exploitation of a minor based on sexually explicit still and video images found on his 

home computer. (Doc. 13, Ex. A) After Vos successfully moved to remand the case to 

the Grand Jury for a new determination of probable cause, the Grand Jury again indicted 

Vos for 11 counts of sexual exploitation of a minor, all class 2 felonies and dangerous 

crimes against children. (Doc. 13, Exs. B, C, D, F) Vos was arraigned and entered a plea 

Case 2:13-cv-01891-DJH Document 18 Filed 04/30/15 Page 1 of 7
- 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 

of not guilty. (Doc. 16 at 17) Vos again moved to remand his case to the Grand Jury but 

was unsuccessful. (Doc. 13, Exs. H, I, J, K) 

 Following a settlement conference, Vos signed plea agreements for both counts 

and a separate plea agreement detailing the requirements of registration as a sex offender. 

(Doc. 13, Ex. L) Vos enter a plea of guilty for one count of sexual exploitation of a 

minor and one count of attempted sexual exploitation of a minor. (Doc. 13, Exs. L, M, 

RR) The Superior Court sentenced Vos to a presumptive term of 17 years for the sexual 

exploitation count and to a term of lifetime probation for the attempted sexual 

exploitation count. (Doc. 13, Exs. O, SS) As contemplated by his plea agreement, the 

Superior Court dismissed the remaining counts. (Doc. 13, Exs. L, O, SS) 

 Vos initiated post-conviction relief proceedings. (Doc. 13, Ex. P) The Superior 

Court appointed Vos counsel who notified the Court that she was unable to raise any 

viable issues and would not file a Petition. (Doc. 13, Exs. Q, R, S, T, U) Vos’ request 

for new counsel was denied. (Doc. 13, Exs. X, BB) Vos filed a pro per petition and 

raised three arguments: ineffective assistance of trial counsel, subject matter jurisdiction, 

and prosecutorial misconduct. (Doc. 1 at 17-38, Ex. 1 at 1-4; Doc. 13, Exs. V, W, Y, Z, 

AA) At the completion of briefing, the Superior Court found that Vos had not presented 

any colorable claims for post-conviction relief and dismissed his petition. (Doc. 1, Ex. 2 

at 27-28; Doc. 13, Exs. CC, DD, EE, FF) The Superior Court subsequently denied Vos’ 

motion for reconsideration. (Doc. 13, Exs. GG, HH, II) 

 Vos timely filed a pro per petition for review. (Doc. 13, Ex. JJ) His petition lists 

three bullet points with the same three arguments that he raised in his Rule 32 petition. 

(Doc. 13, Ex. JJ) Vos also wrote a paragraph alleging that his repeated requests to his 

trial and appellate counsel for “‘missing’ transcripts and documents” went unanswered. 

He acknowledges that he received some of the documents he had requested and then 

alleges that “if all Defendant’s requests would have been successfully fulfilled by his 

counsel, the outcome of his case would have been different.” (Id. at 3) He does not 

explain which documents he received and he does not detail how the missing documents 

Case 2:13-cv-01891-DJH Document 18 Filed 04/30/15 Page 2 of 7
- 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 

would have impacted his case. Moreover, he does not cite any statutes, rules, or cases to 

support his ineffective assistance argument. 

 Then, Vos wrote a page arguing that jurisdiction was proper in Nevada, not 

Arizona, because one of the images had been taken in Nevada. (Id. at 2-3) Finally, he 

writes that his “indictment failed to list essential elements when not specifying the 

Causation (i.e., ‘To wit . . .’) in counts 1 and 2, and was therefore ‘facially defective.’” 

(Id. at 4) He does not elaborate on that argument and instead lists a page of citations. In 

conclusion, he states “[t]he main reason why this Court should grant this petition for 

Review, is that the Maricopa County Superior Court and the state’s prosecution never had 

or claimed subject matter jurisdiction over the evidence for which Defendant was 

ultimately sentenced. This fact encompassed all remaining issues and points to the very 

foundation of Mr. Jonge Vos’s case.” (Id. at 5-6) After the completion of briefing, the 

Court of Appeals denied review. (Doc. 1, Ex. 2 at 38; Doc. 13, Exs. KK, LL) Vos’ 

petition to the Arizona Supreme Court for review was denied on September 13, 2012. 

(Doc. 1 at 117; Doc. 13, Ex. OO) 

 On September 12, 2013, Vos filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in this 

Court. (Doc. 1) His first claim for relief is ineffective assistance of counsel. 

Specifically, he alleges that his trial counsel should have (1) argued that the search 

warrant was improperly served, (2) argued that the facts in Counts One and Two of the 

indictment were inaccurate, (3) been present when Vos was processed for release from 

custody and during his second not-guilty arraignment, (4) turned over transcripts, and (5) 

demanded witness interviews and discovery items. (Id. at 6-11) His second claim for 

relief is that Arizona never acquired subject matter jurisdiction over the evidence in 

Count One. (Id. at 12) His third claim for relief is prosecutorial misconduct based on the 

errors in the initial Grand Jury proceedings, subject matter jurisdiction, double jeopardy 

from the second indictment, and his belief that nine of the counts were charged only for 

enhancement purposes. (Id. at 13) Respondents contend that Vos’ claims are technically 

exhausted but procedurally defaulted, and that his claims are not cognizable in habeas 

Case 2:13-cv-01891-DJH Document 18 Filed 04/30/15 Page 3 of 7
- 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 

review. The Court agrees that Vos’ claims are barred and recommends that this Petition 

be denied and dismissed with prejudice. 

EXHAUSTION OF REMEDIES & PROCEDURAL DEFAULT

 Exhaustion of Remedies. A state prisoner must properly exhaust all state court 

remedies before this Court can grant an application for a writ of habeas corpus. 28 

U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1), (c); Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365 (1995); Coleman v. 

Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 731 (1991). Arizona prisoners properly exhaust state remedies 

by fairly presenting claims to the Arizona Court of Appeals in a procedurally appropriate 

manner. O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 843-45 (1999); Swoopes v. Sublett, 196 

F.3d 1008, 1010 (9th Cir. 1999); Roettgen v. Copeland, 33 F.3d 36, 38 (9th Cir. 1994). To 

be fairly presented, a claim must include a statement of the operative facts and the 

specific federal legal theory. Baldwin v. Reese, 541 U.S. 27, 32-33 (2004); Gray v. 

Netherland, 518 U.S. 152, 162-63 (1996); Duncan, 513 U.S. at 365-66. 

 Procedural Default. A claim can also be subject to an express or implied 

procedural bar. Robinson v. Schriro, 595 F.3d 1086, 1100 (9th Cir. 2010). An express 

procedural bar exists if the state court denies or dismisses a claim based on a procedural 

bar “that is both ‘independent’ of the merits of the federal claim and an ‘adequate’ basis 

for the court’s decision.” Harris v. Reed, 489 U.S. 255, 260 (1989). Stewart v. Smith, 

536 U.S. 856, 860 (2002) (Arizona’s “Rule 32.2(a)(3) determinations are independent of 

federal law because they do not depend upon a federal constitutional ruling on the 

merits”); Johnson v. Mississippi, 486 U.S. 578, 587 (1988) (“adequate” grounds exist 

when a state strictly or regularly follows its procedural rule). See also Ylst v. 

Nunnemaker, 501 U.S. 797, 801 (1991); Robinson, 595 F.3d at 1100. 

 An implied procedural bar exists if a claim was not fairly presented in state court 

and no state remedies remain available to the petitioner. Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 

298-99 (1989); Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 519-20 (1982); Beaty v. Stewart, 303 F.3d 

975, 987 (9th Cir. 2002); Poland v. Stewart, 169 F.3d 573, 586 (9th Cir. 1999); White v. 

Lewis, 874 F.2d 599, 602 (9th Cir. 1989).

Case 2:13-cv-01891-DJH Document 18 Filed 04/30/15 Page 4 of 7
- 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 

 This Court can review a procedurally defaulted claim if the petitioner can 

demonstrate either cause for the default and actual prejudice to excuse the default, or a 

miscarriage of justice. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(c)(2)(B); Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 321 

(1995); Coleman, 501 U.S. at 750; Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478, 495-96 (1986);

United States v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152, 167-68 (1982). 

VOS’ CLAIMS ARE BARRED 

 Vos did not exhaust any of the claims in his habeas petition and an implied 

procedural bar now exists to prevent him from doing so. 

 Vos’ claims were not fairly presented. To meet the exhaustion requirement, Vos 

needed to fairly present his claims to the Arizona Court of Appeals by providing the facts 

underlying his claim and the federal basis of those claims. Vos did not do so. 

 Vos’ petitioned the Arizona Court of Appeals for review of dismissal of his Rule 

32 proceedings and listed three claims as follows: 

II. ISSUE PRESENTED FOR REVIEW

a.) Ineffective Assistance of Counsel (see Defendant’s PCR report, 

05/12/09, issue II, pages 1-12) 

b.) Subject Matter Jurisdiction (see Defendant’s PCR report, 05/12/09, 

issue IV, pages 13-18) 

c.) Prosecutorial Misconduct (see Defendant’s PCR report, 05/12/09, issue 

V, pages 18-24) 

Also, refer to all attached supporting documentation in defendant’s Rule 32, 

PCR report; including not limited to ILS (Inmate Legal Service) letters, 

Affidavits and notes, which supports Defendant’s claims. 

(Doc. 13, Ex. JJ at 2) Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.9(c)(1)(iv) “requires that a 

petitioner present the issues and material facts supporting a claim in a petition for review 

and prohibits raising an issue through incorporation of any document by reference, except 

for appendices.” Wood v. Ryan, 693 F.3d 1104, 1117 (9th Cir. 2012). Vos did not 

comply with this procedural requirement and this list is insufficient to show that he fairly 

presented his claims to the Court of Appeals. Baldwin v. Reese, 541 U.S. 27, 32 (2004) 

(“ordinarily a state prisoner does not ‘fairly present’ a claim to a state court if that court 

must read beyond a petition or a brief (or a similar document) that does not alert it to the 

Case 2:13-cv-01891-DJH Document 18 Filed 04/30/15 Page 5 of 7
- 6 - 

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 

presence of a federal claim in order to find material, such as a lower court opinion in the 

case, that does so”). 

 In addition, Vos was required to explicitly state the federal legal basis for his 

claim. Vos did not do so. He provided the Court of Appeals with no legal support for his 

claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and prosecutorial misconduct. In addition, he 

supported his subject matter jurisdiction claim by citing to various state and federal cases 

about the sufficiency of indictments. (Ex. JJ at 5-6) Because Vos failed to “make the 

federal basis of the claim[s] explicit by citing either federal law or the decision of federal 

courts,” he did not fairly present these claim. Lyons v. Crawford, 232 F.3d 666, 668 (9th

Cir. 2000), as modified by 247 F.3d 904 (9th Cir. 2001). Accordingly, he did not exhaust 

his claims in state court. 

 An Implied Procedural Bar Applies. None of the three claims in Vos’ habeas 

petition were fairly presented in state court and Vos has no remaining state remedies. 

Vos is now precluded or time-barred from raising his three claims in successive and 

untimely Rule 32 petitions. Accordingly, an implied procedural bar exists. Ariz. R. 

Crim. P. 32.1(d)-(h), 32.2(a) & (b), or 32.4(a). 

 In his Petition and his Traverse, Vos has not demonstrated any cause for the 

default. (Doc. 1, 16) Moreover, both pleadings fail to address the issue of a miscarriage 

of justice. Accordingly, this Court will not review his procedurally defaulted claims. 

 IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that Robert Johannes Jonge Vos’ 

petition for writ of habeas corpus be denied and dismissed with prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that a Certificate of Appealability and 

leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal be denied because dismissal of the Petition 

is justified by a plain procedural bar and jurists of reason would not find the ruling 

debatable. 

 This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth 

Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules 

of Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the district court’s judgment. 

Case 2:13-cv-01891-DJH Document 18 Filed 04/30/15 Page 6 of 7
- 7 - 

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 

The parties shall have fourteen days from the date of service of a copy of this 

recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the Court. See, 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Rules 72, 6(a), 6(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Thereafter, 

the parties have fourteen days within which to file a response to the objections. Failure 

timely to file objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation may 

result in the acceptance of the Report and Recommendation by the district court without 

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

Failure timely to file objections to any factual determinations of the Magistrate Judge will 

be considered a waiver of a party’s right to appellate review of the findings of fact in an 

order or judgment entered pursuant to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. See Rule 

72, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

 Dated this 29th day of April, 2015. 

Case 2:13-cv-01891-DJH Document 18 Filed 04/30/15 Page 7 of 7