Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01467/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01467-2/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

Donald A. Montgomery, )

)

Petitioner, ) No. CIV 11-01467-PHX-RCB(SPL)

)

vs. ) O R D E R

)

Deputy Warden Anna Jacobs, )

et al., )

)

Respondents. )

 )

Pending before this court is a Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus relief brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed by

petitioner pro se Donald A. Montgomery (Doc. 1). Petitioner is

seeking a “remand” to Arizona state court for re-sentencing

without taking into account any prior convictions. See, e.g.,

Pet. (Doc. 1) at 12. Also pending is petitioner’s motion for

discovery (Doc. 18), filed on April 19, 2012, while the petition

was pending before Magistrate Judge Steven P. Logan. 

In his Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) filed June 27,

2012, the Magistrate Judge recommends: (1) denying the petition

with prejudice; (2) denying the discovery motion; (3) denying

Case 2:11-cv-01467-RCB Document 23 Filed 07/27/12 Page 1 of 10
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 -

the Certificate of Appealability; and (4) denying petitioner

leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. R & R (Doc. 21)

at 9:10-16. On July 6, 2012, petitioner timely filed objections

(Doc. 22). Respondents did not file any objections. 

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), when reviewing a

R & R, this court “may accept, reject or modify, in whole or in

part, the findings or recommendations made by the [M]agistrate.”

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). That statute “makes it clear that the

district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and

recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not

otherwise.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121

(9 Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original). Thus, as 28 th

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) requires, this court has made “a de novo

determination of those portions of the report . . . to which”

petitioner objected. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Having

conducted such a review, for the reasons set forth below, the

court adopts the Report and Recommendation in its entirety.

Background

The background as recited in the R & R is uncontested. As

such, the court incorporates that background by reference and

adopts the same as if fully set forth herein. 

Discussion

When the Magistrate Judge issued the R & R, petitioner’s

petition for post-conviction relief as to his re-sentencing was

pending before the Arizona Court of Appeals, where it remains

pending as July 27, 2012, the date of the filing and entry of

this order. http://apps.supremecourt.azgov/aacc/1ca - 1CA-CR

11-0051 PRPC (last visited July 27, 2012). Under these

Case 2:11-cv-01467-RCB Document 23 Filed 07/27/12 Page 2 of 10
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 -

circumstances, the Magistrate Judge correctly stated: “‘[A]

federal court may deny an unexhausted petition on the merits

only when it is perfectly clear that the applicant does not

raise even a colorable claim.’” R & R (Doc. 21) at 4:18-19

(quoting Cassett v. Stewart, 406 F.3d 614, 623-24 (9 Cir. th

2005)). The R & R also accurately recites federal habeas relief

may only be granted when state court proceedings: “(1) resulted

in a decision that 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) resulted in

a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of

the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court

proceeding.” See id. at 4:24-5:1 (citing, inter alia, 28

U.S.C. § 2251(d)). The Supreme Court has clarified, as the

Magistrate Judge further pointed out, that even an erroneous or

incorrect application of clearly established federal law does

not support a habeas grant, unless the state court’s application

was “objectively unreasonable.” Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S.

63, 75-76, 123 S.Ct. 1166, 155 L.Ed.2d 144 (2003). 

I. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

Guided by these standards, the Magistrate Judge recommends

denying petitioner’s first ground for habeas relief, wherein

petitioner claims ineffective assistance of counsel in violation

of the Sixth Amendment. Petitioner claims ineffective

assistance of counsel because at his sentencing hearing, and

without his consent, his trial counsel stipulated to prior

convictions. In seeking habeas relief on this basis, petitioner

Case 2:11-cv-01467-RCB Document 23 Filed 07/27/12 Page 3 of 10
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 Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One, affirmed petitioner’s 1

sentences. Ans., exh. BBB thereto (Doc. 12-3). No petition for review was

filed in the Arizona Supreme Court.

- 4 -

does not take into account, as the Magistrate Judge soundly and

accurately reasoned, that petitioner has “already received the

relief to which he was entitled for his trial counsel’s

ineffective assistance at his first sentencing hearing.” R &

R (Doc. 21) at 6:10-11. 

In particular, after his sentencing, petitioner was

successful in seeking post-conviction relief. The trial court

vacated petitioner’s original sentence conducted a new

sentencing hearing. After the re-sentencing hearing, where

there was no stipulation to prior convictions, petitioner was

sentenced to the same sentence previously imposed, i.e., an

aggravated term of 12 years on the class 4 felony and the

presumptive term of 3.75 years on each of the remaining three

offenses, all to be served concurrently. See Pet., exh. I

thereto (Doc. 1-2) at 59:9-15.1

Not only has petitioner already received the relief which

he is seeking in the pending petition, but as the R & R also

notes, in petitioner’s direct appeal after re-sentencing, the

Arizona Court of Appeals held, based upon state law, that its

review was limited to the re-sentencing proceedings. R & R

(Doc. 21) at 6:14-16 (citing Doc. 12 [Ans.], Exh. BBB (Doc. 12-

3) at 6-8). Therefore, that Court did not address petitioner’s

arguments which “focus[ed] entirely on his trial and first

sentencing. Ans. (Doc. 12), exh. BBB (Doc. 12-3) thereto at 7

¶ 11. 

Case 2:11-cv-01467-RCB Document 23 Filed 07/27/12 Page 4 of 10
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 -

The R & R recognizes that “the Court of Appeals relied on

state law to conclude that its review was limited to the

resentencing proceedings[.]” Id. at 6:17-18; see also Ans., exh.

BBB thereto (Doc. 12-3) at 7, ¶ 11. Significantly, however, the

R & R correctly states that:

Petitioner has presented nothing in 

his reply to show that the Court 

of Appeals decision is contrary 

to or an unreasonable application of United 

States Supreme Court law. . . . Nor has 

Petitioner shown that the decision was 

based on an unreasonable determination 

of the facts given the evidence presented 

in the state court. 

R & R (Doc. 21) at 6:18-21 (citation omitted). Concluding, the

R & R found that “[b]ecause Petitioner has already been granted

relief on the claim raised in ground one, and has failed to show

that he is entitled to any further relief,” it recommend denial

of habeas relief based upon ground one. Id. at 6:22-24.

Petitioner lists four objections to this first

recommendation. None have merit, as will readily become

apparent. Initially, petitioner complains that the Arizona

Court of Appeals “chose not [to] review [his] ineffective

assistance of counsel cliam’s [sic] on direct appeal[].” Obj.

(Doc. 22) at 3:20-21. As explained above though, petitioner has

not shown that declining such a review somehow entitles him to

habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Moreover, petitioner does

not in any way expand upon the basis for this objection, which

on its face has no validity. 

Second, petitioner objects stating only that “Sixth

Amendment violations are properly raise[d] in the District

Case 2:11-cv-01467-RCB Document 23 Filed 07/27/12 Page 5 of 10
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

- 6 -

Co[u]rt on habeas corpus.” Id. at 3:21-24 (citation omitted).

The court fails to see how this statement raises a proper

objection to the R & R. This is especially so considering that

nowhere in the R & R does it indicate to the contrary, i.e.,

that petitioner’s alleged Sixth Amendment violation is not

properly before this court. Rather, the R & R properly found

no merit to petitioner’s ineffective assistance of counsel

claim.

Third, petitioner objects because “the trial court applyed

[sic] Strickland [v.] Washington, 466 U.S. at 688, 104 S.Ct.

2052 ‘unreasonable.’” Id. at 3:25-26. Petitioner does not

expand in any way upon the basis for this objection, and its

exact nature is unclear. Perhaps petitioner is arguing that his

re-sentencing was unreasonable. If so, petitioner has utterly

failed to met his burden in this regard as well.

Petitioner’s fourth objection is that he “is entitled to

further” unspecified “relief.” Obj. (Doc. 22) at 3 - 4:1.

This, too, is not a valid objection to any of the Magistrate

Judge’s findings or recommendations.

In short, there is no merit to any of petitioner’s

objections to the R & R’s recommendation to deny his first

ground for habeas relief.

II. “Excessive and Cruel” Sentence

The petition contains a second ground for habeas relief.

It broadly alleges violations of “fundamental fairness, equal

protection and due process” in violation of the Fifth, Sixth,

Eighth, Ninth and Fourteenth amendments of the United States

Case 2:11-cv-01467-RCB Document 23 Filed 07/27/12 Page 6 of 10
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

- 7 -

Constitution. Pet. (Doc. 1) at 13. Ground two also encompasses

petitioner’s claim that his sentence was “excessive and cruel.”

Id. As with ground one, the primary factual basis for the

foregoing is petitioner’s claim that “his initial sentence was

based on an erroneous stipulation of prior felony convictions.”

See R & R (Doc. 21) at 3:23-24. Ground two also includes a

claim that petitioner’s re-sentencing violated the Double

Jeopardy Clause. 

As to the petitioner’s arguments regarding his initial

sentence, and “how it was based on an erroneous stipulation to

prior felony convictions[,]” the Magistrate Judge found “those

arguments [to be] irrelevant in light of the relief [petitioner]

was granted.” Id. at 7:2-4. Further, after correctly analyzing

petitioner’s Double Jeopardy claim, the Magistrate Judge found

that petitioner “presented nothing to demonstrate that the

Arizona Court of Appeals [sic] decision denying his double

jeopardy claims is contrary to or an unreasonable application

of clearly established United States Supreme Court law.” Id.

at 7:22-24. 

Indeed, now petitioner concedes the inapplicability of the

Double Jeopardy Clause. See Obj. (Doc. 22) at 4:8-9. Thus, at

this juncture petitioner’s only objection regarding ground two

is that his sentence is “excessive and cruel[.]” Id. at 4:6.

Petitioner offers no basis whatsoever for this objection,

however, and the court finds it, too, to be without merit. 

III. Other Sentencing Issues

Ground three of the petition is another iteration of

Case 2:11-cv-01467-RCB Document 23 Filed 07/27/12 Page 7 of 10
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

- 8 -

petitioner’s ineffective assistance of trial counsel at his

initial sentencing. This ground also includes allegations of

judicial and prosecutorial misconduct, both related to his

initial sentencing. 

After carefully reviewing both ground three of the petition

and the R & R addressing that ground, this court hereby adopts

the Magistrate Judge’s factual findings and legal conclusions

in that regard. See R & R (Doc. 21) at 8:2-20. Accordingly,

it agrees with the Magistrate Judge that ground three provides

no basis for granting habeas relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

2254. See id. at 8:20-21. 

Because “it is perfectly clear that [petitioner] does not

raise even a colorable federal claim[,]” in his unexhausted

petition, the court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s R & R and

denies this petition with prejudice. See Cassett, 406 F.3d at

623-24. 

IV. Discovery

Petitioner’s discovery motion seeks permission to propound

four interrogatories upon respondents. See Mot. (Doc. 18) at

5. Citing to Sivak v. Hardison, 658 F.3d 898, 927 (9 Cir. th

2011), the Magistrate Judge correctly stated, “[d]iscovery is

available in a § 2254 habeas case only in the discretion of the

court and upon a showing of good cause.” R & R (Doc. 21) at

8:24-26. Finding “that answers to the interrogatories would

have no bearing on the Court’s analysis of recommendation[,]”

and because “[p]etitioner waited until months after briefing was

completed to even make the request[,]” the Magistrate Judge

Case 2:11-cv-01467-RCB Document 23 Filed 07/27/12 Page 8 of 10
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

- 9 -

recommends denying this motion. Id. at 8:26-9:2.

Petitioner objects asserting that the “facts” sought

through those interrogatories “sup[p]ort . . . his ineffective

assistance cl[ai]m[,]” and his “entitle[ment] to further

relief.” Obj. (Doc. 22) at 4:21-23. There is nothing in the

record before this court supporting that bald objection,

however. Consequently, the court agrees with and adopts the

Magistrate Judge’s factual findings and legal conclusions and

denies petitioner’s discovery motion. 

V. Certificate of Appealability/In Forma Pauperis Status

Lastly, “because [p]etitioner [did] not ma[k]e a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right[,]”

the Magistrate Judge recommends denying a certificate of

appealability and denying petitioner leave to proceed in forma

pauperis on appeal. R & R (Doc. 21) at 9:14-16. Plaintiff’s

mere disagreement with this finding, without more, does not

warrant a different finding by this court. See Obj. (Doc. 22)

at 4:24-5:5. Thus, the court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s

recommendation in this regard. 

Conclusion

To summarize, and for the reasons set forth above, IT IS

HEREBY ORDERED that:

(1) United States Magistrate Judge Logan’s Report and

Recommendation (Doc. 21) is ADOPTED [as the findings of fact and

conclusions of law by this court];

(2) the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) is

DENIED;

Case 2:11-cv-01467-RCB Document 23 Filed 07/27/12 Page 9 of 10
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

- 10 -

(3) plaintiff’s “Motion for an [sic] Request For Discovery

Habeas Corpus Cases Rule 6" (Doc. 18) is DENIED;

(4) a Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed in

forma pauperis on appeal is DENIED; and

(5) that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment in

accordance with this Order DISMISSING this petition WITH

PREJUDICE. 

DATED this 27 day of July, 2012. th

Copies to counsel of record and petitioner pro se

Case 2:11-cv-01467-RCB Document 23 Filed 07/27/12 Page 10 of 10