Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00502/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00502-1/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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Carlos Gonzales, 

Petitioner, 

vs. 

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Respondents.

No. CV11-0502-PHX-DGC

ORDER 

 Following a jury trial in Maricopa County Superior Court in 2006, Petitioner 

Carlos Gonzales was found guilty of second degree murder and aggravated assault. 

Doc. 11, Exh. E, F. The trial court sentenced Mr. Gonzales to 20 years in prison for the 

murder conviction and a consecutive term of 11.25 years for the aggravated assault 

conviction. Doc. 11, Exh. H. The Court also sentenced Petitioner to 9.75 years in prison 

for three prior felonies. Id.

 Mr. Gonzales filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. ' 2254, alleging that the trial court’s answer to the jury’s question about 

accomplice liability and transferred intent was incorrect as a matter of law, thus calling 

into question the jury’s verdict on the murder charge. Doc. 1 at 6. Mr. Gonzales alleges 

that the erroneous answer allowed the jury to convict on a legal theory in contravention 

of the Due Process Clause and the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of 

counsel. Id. The Court referred the petition to United States Magistrate Judge Edward C. 

Voss for report and recommendation ("R&R"). Doc. 3. Judge Voss recommended that 

Case 2:11-cv-00502-DGC Document 17 Filed 12/13/11 Page 1 of 5
- 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 

the Court deny the petition because Mr. Gonzales failed to raise the jury question on 

direct appeal in state court and failed to present a constitutional or federal issue with 

respect to this claim when he raised it for the first time in his state court petition for postconviction relief (“PCR”). Doc. 14 at 4. Even construing Mr. Gonzales’ claim as 

presenting a constitutional issue, Judge Voss concluded that Mr. Gonzales failed to 

exhaust his claim in state court by seeking appellate review. Id. at 5. Because the time 

had passed for Mr. Gonzales to seek relief in state court, Judge Voss concluded that the 

claim was procedurally barred. Id. 

 Mr. Gonzales filed objections to the R&R. Doc. 15. For the reasons that follow, 

the Court will accept the R&R’s conclusions and deny the petition. 

I. Standard of Review.

 A party may file specific written objections to the R&R’s proposed findings and 

recommendations. The Court must undertake de novo review of those portions of the 

R&R to which specific objections are made. The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in 

whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

II. Analysis. 

Mr. Gonzales objects to the statement in the background section of the R&R that 

he filed his habeas petition with this Court on March 14, 2010. Doc. 15 at 3. The Court 

finds that Mr. Gonzales filed his petition on March 16, 2011. Doc. 1. The Court will 

modify the background section to reflect the correct date. Mr. Gonzales does not object 

to any other facts in the background section, and the Court will accept the rest of the 

background facts as stated in the R&R. 

 Mr. Gonzales objects to the R&R’s finding of procedural default for his failure to 

file a petition for post-conviction relief with the state Court of Appeals because, he 

argues, he alleged both cause and prejudice and a fundamental miscarriage of justice, and 

the procedural default should be excused. Doc. 15 at 2. Mr. Gonzales argues that he 

Case 2:11-cv-00502-DGC Document 17 Filed 12/13/11 Page 2 of 5
- 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 

properly presented his jury question claim – including the federal theory of the claim – in 

his initial petition for post-conviction relief, and that his sole failure to submit his petition 

for review by the state Court of Appeals was due not to any fault of his own, but to 

abandonment by his post-conviction counsel. Doc. 15 at 4. Mr. Gonzales argues that the 

failure of his post-conviction attorney to submit an appeal, thus procedurally defaulting 

his claim, caused him prejudice because the constitutional violation at issue infected his 

trial. Id. at 2. Mr. Gonzales also argues that a miscarriage of justice would result if his 

petition is denied because he is actually innocent. Id. 

 Judge Voss addressed the question of whether Mr. Gonzales’ procedural default 

should be waived due to ineffective assistance of post-conviction counsel and determined 

that Mr. Gonzales had not raised this argument in his habeas petition and had not 

presented sufficient facts to show that his post-conviction counsel’s actions rose to the 

level of a constitutional violation. Doc. 14 at 5 (citing Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 

722, 755 (1991) (stating that ineffectiveness assistance of counsel does not show cause to 

excuse default when there is no constitutional right to counsel in state collateral review 

proceedings)). Mr. Gonzales has presented no specific objections to the R&R’s findings 

on this claim that require this Court to exercise de novo review. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 

U.S. 140, 149, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985) (stating that no review at all is 

required for “any issue that is not the subject of an objection.”); United States v. ReynaTapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir.2003) (same). 

 Mr. Gonzales has, however, presented new factual evidence for his ineffective 

assistance of counsel claim, including that counsel “dropped off the radar” while 

remaining counsel of record up to the time of default (Doc. 15 at 3), which requires the 

Court to determine whether it will consider these new facts. See United States v. Howell, 

231 F. 3d 615, 622 (9th Cir. 2000) (emphasizing that “in making a decision on whether to 

consider newly offered evidence, the district court must actually exercise its discretion, 

rather than summarily accepting or denying the motion.”). The Court will reject Mr. 

Case 2:11-cv-00502-DGC Document 17 Filed 12/13/11 Page 3 of 5
- 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 

Gonzales’ additional factual allegations as moot. Absent a constitutional requirement 

that Mr. Gonzales be represented by counsel on collateral review, the Court agrees with 

the findings in the R&R that counsel’s failure to file a timely post-conviction petition to 

the Arizona Court of Appeals does not constitute a constitutional violation as required for 

a waiver of procedural default under the Supreme Court’s decision in Coleman. Mr. 

Gonzales argues that “the Rules” precluded him from filing his own brief and that he was 

“powerless to remedy” counsel’s failure, but Mr. Gonzales does not cite any specific rule. 

Doc 15 at 3, 4. Nor has Mr. Gonzales raised the issue of cause for default in his federal 

habeas petition. Additionally, Mr. Gonzales raises no specific objections to Judge Voss’s 

finding that he failed to show that actual prejudice or a miscarriage of justice would result 

from a failure to consider his federal habeas claim on the merits. See Doc. 14 at 6. Mr. 

Gonzales merely cites to the arguments already made in his reply brief, and rejected by 

Judge Voss, that he would be prejudiced by procedural default because the trial court 

committed constitutional error and he was actually innocent. See Docs. 15 at 4; 14 at 4-5. 

Mr. Gonzales’ reference to arguments already presented is ineffective because it fails to 

make any specific objection to the findings of Judge Voss. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 

140, 149 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003); 

Sullivan v. Schriro, No. CV-04-1517, 2006 WL 1516005 (D. Ariz. May 30, 2006). 

 Mr. Gonzales also argues that the Court should dismiss his petition without 

prejudice to allow him to return to state court based on new facts and his ineffective 

assistance of counsel claim. Doc. 15 at 5. Mr. Gonzales makes this argument in a 

separately titled “Motion for Voluntary Dismissal” made “pursuant to Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 41.” Id. at 7, Doc. 16. Rule 41 allows the Court to dismiss an action 

upon plaintiff’s request “on terms that the court determines proper.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

41(a)(2). The Court finds that dismissal is not proper because this Court’s adjudication 

of Mr. Gonzales’ petition does not preclude him from seeking remedy on the basis of new 

facts and excusable default in state court under Arizona Rule of Criminal 

Case 2:11-cv-00502-DGC Document 17 Filed 12/13/11 Page 4 of 5
- 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 

Procedure 32.1 (e) & (f). See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b) (noting that adjudication in a 

collateral proceeding does not preclude claims brought under Rule 32.1(d)-(h)). 

IT IS ORDERED: 

 1. The date of Mr. Gonzales’ petition to this Court as stated in the background 

section of the R&R is modified to read March 16, 2011. 

 2. Magistrate Judge Edward C. Voss’s R&R (Doc. 14) is accepted. 

 3. Mr. Gonzales’ petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1) is denied with 

prejudice. 

 4. Mr. Gonzales’ motion for voluntary dismissal (Doc 16) is denied. 

 5. A certificate of appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis are 

denied because Mr. Gonzlaes has made no substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). 

 6. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate this action. 

 Dated this 13th day of December, 2011. 

Case 2:11-cv-00502-DGC Document 17 Filed 12/13/11 Page 5 of 5