Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-00381/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-00381-1/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 

Jon Rolland Martin, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Respondents.

No. CV-13-00381-PHX-ROS

ORDER 

 Before the Court are Petitioner Martin’s objections to the findings and 

recommendations (“R & R”) of the Magistrate Judge. (Doc. 24). For the following 

reasons, the R & R will be adopted. 

BACKGROUND 

 On November 9, 2007, Jon Rolland Martin (“Martin”) was convicted in Pinal 

County Superior Court for three counts of aggravated assault on a peace officer. For each 

count, he was sentenced to 15 years in prison, to run consecutively for a total of 45 years. 

The basis for Martin’s conviction was a February 2006 encounter with police at Martin’s 

home. The Pinal County Sheriff’s Office (“PCSO”) sent a S.W.A.T. team of 10 officers 

to the home to execute a search warrant. According to the PCSO’s incident report, 

“[a]fter the notification of the pending search warrant,” the team attempted to call Martin 

out of his home. At that point, the report states Martin “opened the door and yelled ‘I’m 

going to shoot the cop who comes through the door’. [sic].” One officer supposedly saw a 

“‘pump shot gun’ and then heard the sound of a round being engaged into the breach.” 

Case 2:13-cv-00381-ROS Document 26 Filed 10/24/14 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 state eventually conceded that, in the search of Martin’s home that followed, only a 

single action, not a pump action, shotgun was found. At trial, defense counsel elicited 

testimony from one of the officers that a single action shotgun does not make the sound 

made by a pump action shotgun. Martin maintained throughout trial that he was not 

aware the persons attempting to enter his home were police officers. 

 Martin appealed the conviction through counsel, arguing: (1) denial of due process 

and Sixth Amendment rights by permitting the use of aggravation factors previously 

precluded, namely the racking of a pump action shotgun before the jury during the 

prosecution’s opening statement; (2) error in the exclusion of corroborative testimony by 

Martin’s sister; and (3) improper vouching by the trial court for a victim/witness’s 

credibility. Martin ultimately withdrew the third claim, and the Arizona Court of Appeals 

rejected the other two. The Arizona Supreme Court denied review. 

 Martin applied through counsel for post-conviction review, arguing: (1) the jury 

instructions failed to comport with the indictment; (2) the “racking” of a pump action 

shotgun during the prosecution’s opening statement constituted improper use of graphic 

demonstration; and (3) ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to impeach officer 

testimony with a contradictory incident report, failure to call a witness on the lack of 

pump shotgun at the house, and failure to call a witness on the callout by police.1

 The 

superior court found the first two issues precluded by Martin’s failure to raise them on 

direct appeal; it also found they lacked merit. The court found counsel made reasonable 

tactical decisions and was not ineffective. The court of appeals also denied relief. 

 Martin’s second petition purported to be based on newly discovered facts. He 

argued ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for failure to raise the later precluded 

issues he raised in his first petition on direct appeal. Martin did not know appellate 

counsel had been ineffective, he claimed, until the superior court informed him of the 

preclusive effect of failing to raise the issues in his first appeal. The superior court denied 

 

1

 Martin also raised two factual matters—whether Martin knew the officers were 

police and whether he racked a pump action shotgun—which the court declined to review. 

Case 2:13-cv-00381-ROS Document 26 Filed 10/24/14 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 

the second petition, stating, “[T]he fact that the Court ruled that these matters were 

precluded does not establish that they had sufficient merit to be included in the appeal by 

appellate counsel. In fact, the Court clearly indicated in the ruling that these arguments 

were without merit.” Martin’s third notice of post-conviction relief was untimely and 

failed to show newly discovered evidence. The superior court summarily dismissed the 

notice. The Arizona Supreme Court denied Martin’s request to present an untimely 

petition for review. 

 On February 21, 2013, Martin filed his federal petition for writ of habeas corpus. 

Petitioner claims: (1) the trial court erred in excluding corroborative testimony by 

Martin’s sister; (2) violation of his Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights to due 

process and an impartial jury by virtue of the “racking” of the shotgun in front of the jury 

and the presentation of officer testimony inconsistent with the PCSO’s incident report; 

(3) ineffective assistance of trial counsel as a result of failure to conduct adequate 

investigation, provide Petitioner with deposition transcripts or police reports, object to the 

shotgun demonstration at trial, object to officers’ remaining in the courtroom during trial, 

and impeach officer testimony with the incident report; and (4) ineffective assistance of 

appellate counsel. On March 10, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued a report 

recommending denial of the petition. The Magistrate found all but part three of ground 

three of the petition procedurally barred without cause and prejudice. The Magistrate 

evaluated part three, ground three (ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failure to 

object to shotgun demonstration at trial) on the merits and found counsel’s decision not to 

object at trial reasonable because the demonstration “emphasized the primary hole in the 

prosecution’s case, namely the absence of a pump action shotgun.” 

ANALYSIS 

I. Standard of Review for Report and Recommendation 

A district judge “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 

recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b). Where any party 

has filed timely objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendations (“R & 

R”), the district court’s review of the part objected to is to be de novo. Id. See also 

Case 2:13-cv-00381-ROS Document 26 Filed 10/24/14 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 

United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). “Neither the 

Constitution nor the statute requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and 

recommendations that the parties themselves accept as correct.” Mortensen v. BAC Home 

Loans Servicing, LP, 1:10-CV-00298-EJL, 2013 WL 943085 (D. Idaho Mar. 8, 2013). 

Rather, a district judge must only review “findings and recommendations de novo if 

objection is made.” Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1122; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) 

(“[T]he court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the [R & R] to 

which objection is made.”). Although the Ninth Circuit has not yet ruled on the matter, 

other circuits and district courts within the Ninth Circuit have held when a petitioner 

raises a general objection to an R & R, rather than specific objections, the Court is 

relieved of any obligation to review it. See, e.g., Warling v. Ryan, 2013 WL 5276367, at 

*2 (D. Ariz. Sept. 19, 2013) (“[A] general objection ‘has the same effect as would a 

failure to object.’”); Gutierrez v. Flannican, CV-05-2981PHXDGCDKD, 2006 WL 

2816599 (D. Ariz. Sept. 29, 2006) (citing Goney v. Clark, 749 F.2d 5, 7 (3d Cir. 1984); 

Lockert v. Faulkner, 843 F.2d 1015, 1019 (7th Cir. 1988); Howard v. Sec. of Health and 

Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991); United States v. One Parcel of Real 

Prop., 73 F.3d 1057, 1060 (10th Cir. 1996)). 

II. Petitioner Fails to Make Specific Objections

 The R & R is considerably detailed and meticulously sorts each of Petitioner’s 

claims, applying the myriad procedural rules of habeas corpus to the history of 

Petitioner’s case. Petitioner’s most specific objection is that the R & R contradicts an 

earlier magistrate order. However, the statements to which Petitioner points—one 

concerning the Magistrate’s tentative finding of exhaustion and another explaining the 

Magistrate’s decision not to investigate missing pages from the incident report—are 

unrelated. The remainder of Petitioner’s objection consists of criticisms of the justice 

system and prosecutors’ conduct, generally. He does not object to the Magistrate’s 

findings of procedural bar or reasonableness of counsel. This is insufficient to trigger de 

novo review of those findings. Therefore, the R & R will be adopted in full. 

 

Case 2:13-cv-00381-ROS Document 26 Filed 10/24/14 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 

 Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation (Doc. 23) is 

ADOPTED. Petitioner’s objections (Doc. 24) are OVERRULED, and the petition (Doc. 

1) is DENIED. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED a Certificate of Appealability is DENIED because 

Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 

 Dated this 23rd day of October, 2014. 

Honorable Roslyn O. Silver

Senior United States District Judge

Case 2:13-cv-00381-ROS Document 26 Filed 10/24/14 Page 5 of 5