Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00586/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00586-1/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Lin William James, 

Petitioner, 

v.

Rick Mauldin, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 08-0586 PHX-NVW (HCE)

ORDER

Pending before the court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of

Magistrate Judge Estrada (Doc. # 21) regarding petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. # 1). The R&R recommends that the

Petition be denied and dismissed with prejudice. The Magistrate Judge

advised the parties that they had fourteen days to file objections to the R&R. (R&R at 73)

(citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)). Petitioner filed objections on January 22, 2010. (Doc. # 22.) 

The court has considered the objections and reviewed the Report and

Recommendation de novo. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that

the court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and

Recommendation to which specific objections are made). The court agrees with the

Magistrate Judge's determinations, accepts the recommended decision within the meaning

of Rule 72(b), Fed. R. Civ. P., and overrules Petitioner's objections. See 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1) (stating that the district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in

Case 2:08-cv-00586-NVW Document 23 Filed 01/27/10 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate”).

Insofar as the Magistrate Judge also ruled on any non-dispositive matters, error

may not be assigned to any defect in those rulings to the extent that an aggrieved party

did not file a timely objection. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) (“A party may serve and file

objections to the order within 10 days after being served with a copy [of the magistrate’s

order]. A party may not assign as error a defect in the order not timely objected to.”). The

absence of a timely objection precludes later assignment of error in this court or in any

higher court of the non-dispositive rulings of a magistrate judge. Simpson v. Lear

Astronics Corp., 77 F.3d 1170, 1174 (9th Cir. 1996); Philipps v. GMC, 289 F.3d 1117,

1120-21 (9th Cir. 2002). 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the

Magistrate Judge (Doc.21 ) is accepted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court enter judgment

dismissing the following claims as procedurally defaulted:

(1) that portion of Petitioner’s Ground I due process claim regarding the filing

of felony charges after expiration of the statute of limitations applicable to

misdemeanors; 

(2) Petitioner’s Ground I claim that his rights under the Equal Protection

Clause were violated;

(3) Petitioner’s Ground II claims of due process and Sixth Amendment

violations;

(4) Petitioner’s Ground III claims of violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause,

Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause with regard to the

State’s alleged reliance on the 2002 version of Ariz.R.Crim.P. 8.2;

(5) Petitioner’s Ground IV claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel

regarding Petitioner’s allegations that trial counsel failed to: advise the trial

Case 2:08-cv-00586-NVW Document 23 Filed 01/27/10 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

court that the charges against Petitioner were insufficient as a matter of law;

subject the prosecution’s case to any meaningful adversarial testing; and

raise the issue of Petitioner’s right to a speedy trial under the U.S.

Constitution; and

(6) Petitioner’s Ground V claims that: use of his 1992 and 1993 prior

convictions violated the Equal Protection Clause; use of Petitioner’s 1992

conviction at sentencing violated the Due Process Clause due to lack of

proper evidence; A.R.S. §13-702(C) is unconstitutional; and the Sixth

Amendment was violated due to double or triple counting.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that judgment be entered denying the following

claims on the merits:

(1) Petitioner’s Ground I claims of violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause and

Due Process Clause due to the filing of felony charges after dismissal of the

misdemeanor charges; 

(2) Petitioner’s Ground III claim of violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause with

regard to the filing of the felony charges after dismissal of the misdemeanor

charges;

(3) Petitioner’s Ground IV claim of ineffective assistance of counsel

concerning trial counsel’s alleged failure to advise the court of the lapsed

expiration of time with regard to the statute of limitations applicable to

misdemeanors; 

(4) Petitioner’s Ground V claims based on Blakely and the Double Jeopardy

Clause; and

(5) Petitioner’s Ground V due process claim challenging the use of his prior

convictions at sentencing on the grounds that: the prior convictions were

too old to qualify as historical prior felony convictions; evidence of the

Case 2:08-cv-00586-NVW Document 23 Filed 01/27/10 Page 3 of 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

- 4 -

1992 conviction was inadmissible at trial; and the prior convictions were

not alleged in the charging document.

(6) Any other claim not addressed explicitly in the judgment.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the judgment dismiss Petitioner’s Ground II as

non-cognizable to the extent that Petitioner claims a violation of Rule 8 of the Arizona

Rules of Criminal Procedure.

The Clerk shall terminate this action.

DATED this 26th day of January, 2010.

Case 2:08-cv-00586-NVW Document 23 Filed 01/27/10 Page 4 of 4