Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_03-cv-02203/USCOURTS-azd-2_03-cv-02203-0/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

Ebon Zack Harris, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Daniel Edwards, et al.,

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 03-2203-PHX-MHM (BPV)

ORDER

Petitioner proceeding pro se has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28

U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his criminal conviction obtained in the Superior Court, Maricopa

County, State of Arizona. The matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge

Bernardo P. Velasco, who has issued a Report and Recommendation that recommends that

the Petition should be denied (Doc.22). Petitioner filed a notice of appeal which was docketed

as objections to the Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 23). Some three weeks later,

Petitioner filed a document styled "Appeal and Objections to Magistrates Recommendation."

(Doc. 24). 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The Court must review the legal analysis in the Report and Recommendation de novo.

See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The Court must review the factual analysis in the Report and

Recommendation de novo for those facts to which objections are filed and for clear error for

those facts to which no objections are filed. Id. "Failure to object to a magistrate judge's

Case 2:03-cv-02203-MHM Document 25 Filed 12/23/05 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 -

recommendation waives all objections to the judge's findings of fact." Jones v. Wood, 207

F.3d 557, 562 n.2 (9th Cir. 2000). 

DISCUSSION

The Court has considered the pleadings and documents of record in this case.

Petitioner was found guilty by a jury of First Degree Murder, a Class One Felony, for the

premeditated murder of Keith Benart Reese. The relevant facts as summarized by the Arizona

Court of Appeals showed that on December 3, 1996, around 7:30 p.m., Ricky C. ("Ricky")

and Arnulfo H. ("Arnulfo") were sitting on a utility box behind their townhouse complex

drinking beer. Keith R. ("the victim"), a close friend and neighbor, stopped by, had a beer and

left. Five or ten minutes later, the victim returned with the Petitioner and two other men.

Ricky and Arnulfo did not hear the conversation going on among the other men, who were

about eight feet away. After a time, Petitioner stood up and said, "fuck this shit," and placed

a long-barreled pistol within inches of the back of the victim's head and fired one shot. 

Petitioner and his two companions walked away. 

Later than night, Petitioner allegedly tried to persuade a long-time family friend who

lived in the same complex where the shooting occurred to provide him with an alibi but she

refused. A couple of weeks later, police circulated a composite drawing of the killer that was

based on Ricky's eyewitness account. The family friend saw the composite on a poster at a

neighborhood store, called Silent Witness and named Petitioner. The police presented pictures

of Petitioner and four other men to Ricky and Arnulfo in a "photo line-up" and both identified

Petitioner. Ricky and Arnulfo identified Petitioner at trial, although Ricky's trial identification

was somewhat equivocal. Petitioner was sentenced to life imprisonment with parole possible

after 25 years. Petitioner's motion for new trial was denied. 

Petitioner appealed his conviction to the Arizona Court of Appeals in which he raised

on appeal the following issues: his pre-trial photo line-up was unduly suggestive; the trial

court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offense of "heat of passion"

manslaughter; and a claim for pre-sentence incarceration credit. The Arizona Court of

Case 2:03-cv-02203-MHM Document 25 Filed 12/23/05 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 -

Appeals granted Petitioner a one-day pre-sentence credit and rejected the other two issues on

the merits and affirmed the conviction and sentence as modified.

Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief in the state trial court raising claims

of ineffective assistance of counsel and the alleged failure of the prosecution to disclose

evidence of a photograph and video of an individual who supposedly fit the description of the

person who shot the victim. The trial court rejected the ineffective assistance of counsel claim

on the merits and held that Petitioner had waived the "failure to disclose evidence" issue by

not raising the issue on direct appeal. Petitioner's petition for review filed with the Arizona

Court of Appeals over two months later was dismissed as untimely under Ariz.R.Crim.P.

32.9(c). Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in the state trial court. The state

trial court construed the Petition as a Notice of Post-Conviction Relief and denied the petition

because the claims were raised in the first Rule 32 proceeding. 

Petitioner then filed a Petition under § 2254 in this Court in which he has raised the

following issues: violation of Fourteenth Amendment due process rights as a result of the

State's alleged failure to disclose exculpatory evidence, that is, a neighborhood store's security

camera video that allegedly showed an individual who supposedly resembled the shooter;

ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of the Sixth Amendment; and violation of the

confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment because defense counsel agreed with the

prosecution during trial to preclude evidence about drugs.

The Magistrate Judge has recommended denial of all grounds asserted in the federal

habeas Petition as barred based on procedural default and because Petitioner has not

demonstrated cause for the default and actual prejudice as a result of the alleged violation of

federal law. Petitioner also has not shown that failure to consider the claims will result in a

fundamental miscarriage of justice.

Petitioner has filed objections to the Report and Recommendation, asking for leniency

from this Court. Petitioner further objects that he made a good faith effort to comply with

state procedural rules and states that he was not given legal assistance. Such factors are

Case 2:03-cv-02203-MHM Document 25 Filed 12/23/05 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 -

insufficient to show cause for the default. See, e.g., Hughes v. Idaho State Board of

Corrections, 800 F.2d 905, 909 (9th Cir. 1986)(illiteracy of pro se petitioner not sufficient

cause to avoid procedural bar); Tacho v. Martinez, 862 F.2d 1376, 1381 (9th Cir. 1988)(pro

se litigant's defective mental condition did not constitute cause for procedural default). A

petitioner's inexperience or lack of legal training cannot serve as cause to excuse his failure

to file a timely post-conviction motion. See Duvall v. Purkett, 15 F.3d 745, 748 (8th Cir.

1994)(ignorance of federal claim not an "external impediment" that caused procedural

default). Petitioner has not demonstrated a claim of actual innocence based on reliable

evidence not presented at trial. See Casey v. Moore, 386 F.3d 896, 921 n.27 (9th Cir. 2004),

cert. denied, 125 S.Ct. 2975 (2005). 

 Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner's objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and

Recommendation (Doc. 23 & 24) are overruled;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Report and

Recommendation (Doc. 22) is adopted in its entirety as the Order of this Court; 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed under

28 U.S.C. § 2254 is denied. 

DATED this 20th day of December, 2005.

Case 2:03-cv-02203-MHM Document 25 Filed 12/23/05 Page 4 of 4