Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00839/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00839-3/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 

Paul Bryan De Los Rios, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Charles L. Ryan, Director of the 

Department of Corrections, et al., 

Respondents. 

No. CV-12-00839-PHX-GMS

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court are Petitioner Paul Bryan De Los Rios’s Petition for 

Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) and Petitioner’s Motions to Produce Documents. (Docs. 

24-25.) Magistrate Judge David K. Duncan issued a Report and Recommendation 

(“R&R”) in which he recommended that the Court deny the petition with prejudice. (Doc. 

13.) De Los Rios filed objections to the R&R. (Doc. 23.) Because objections have been 

filed, the Court will review the petition de novo. See United States v. Reyna–Tapia, 328 

F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). For the following reasons, the Court accepts 

the R&R and denies the petition. The Court also denies De Los Rios’s Motions to 

Produce Documents. 

BACKGROUND 

 De Los Rios was convicted by a jury in Maricopa County Superior Court, case 

#CR2001-14225, of first degree murder and two counts each of kidnapping and child 

Case 2:12-cv-00839-GMS Document 29 Filed 09/23/13 Page 1 of 7
- 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 

abuse. (Doc. 11, Ex. A at 5.) De Los Rios was sentenced to natural life in prison for the 

charge of first degree murder and consecutive terms of ten year’s incarceration for each 

of the kidnapping and child abuse charges, to be served consecutive to the life sentence. 

(Id.) De Los Rios filed a timely notice of appeal. (Id.) 

 De Los Rios’s counsel filed an Anders brief on October 31, 2008, stating that he 

found no arguable question of law that is not frivolous. (Id., Ex. A, B.) De Los Rios, as 

permitted by Arizona law, then filed a supplemental brief pro se. (Id.) In his brief, he 

raised the following claims: (1) the grand jury proceeding was flawed and the trial court 

had improperly amended the indictment at trial; (2) the jury instruction defining 

“reckless,” as set out in the lesser included offenses, was improper; (3) the trial court 

erred in not allowing De Los Rios to interview Son, who testified for the State, prior to 

trial; (4) Son gave false testimony at trial as reflected by contradicting statements given 

by a nontestifying witness; and (5) the State presented insufficient evidence to sustain the 

verdicts. (Id.) The Court of Appeals affirmed De Los Rios’s convictions and sentences on 

March 3, 2009. (Id., Ex. A.) The Arizona Supreme Court denied review on June 30, 

2009. (Id.) 

 De Los Rios filed a Notice of Post-Conviction Relief on November 10, 2008, and 

a subsequent Petition for Post-Conviction Relief. (Id., Ex. D.) The petition raised one 

claim: that the trial court had erred in denying a defense motion to limit argument 

regarding the murder count, resulting in an improper amendment to the indictment and 

thus denying him a grand jury determination on probable cause, the effective assistance 

of counsel, and a unanimous jury verdict. (Id.) On July 27, 2010, the Superior Court 

dismissed the petition for post-conviction relief. (Id., Ex. E.) 

 De Los Rios then petitioned for review of the denial of his petition at the Arizona 

Court of Appeals, raising two claims: (1) the trial court improperly amended the 

indictment; and (2) trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to challenge 

the amended indictment. (Id., Ex. F.) The Arizona Court of Appeals denied review on 

March 28, 2012. (Id., Ex. G.) 

Case 2:12-cv-00839-GMS Document 29 Filed 09/23/13 Page 2 of 7
- 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 

 De Los Rios filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus on April 23, 2012. 

(Doc. 1.) In his petition, De Los Rios names Charles Ryan as Respondent and the 

Arizona Attorney General as an Additional Respondent. He cites three grounds for relief: 

(1) trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to object to an amended 

indictment; (2) trial counsel failed to provide De Los Rios with complete copies of 

discovery; and (3) The Arizona Department of Corrections denied him use of the law 

library. (Doc. 1.) This Court subsequently dismissed Ground Three in its May 16, 2012 

order. (Doc. 4.) 

 Magistrate Judge Duncan issued an R&R on April 24, 2013, in which he 

recommended denial of the petition with prejudice. (Doc. 13.) De Los Rios filed his 

objections to the R&R on July 16, 2013, (Doc. 23), and the Court will now review the 

petition de novo. 

DISCUSSION 

I. LEGAL STANDARD 

The writ of habeas corpus affords relief to persons in custody in violation of the 

Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3)(2006). Review 

of Petitions for Habeas Corpus is governed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death 

Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”). Id. U.S.C. § 2244 et seq. 

 A petitioner is required to exhaust his claim in state court before seeking federal 

habeas relief. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A). To satisfy that requirement, a petitioner must 

“give the state courts an opportunity to act on his claims before he presents those claims 

to a federal court in a habeas petition.” O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 842 (1999). 

In Arizona, a petitioner is required to “fairly present” all claims he seeks to assert in his 

habeas proceeding first to the Arizona Court of Appeals either through direct appeal or 

the State’s post-conviction relief proceedings. Swoopes v. Sublett, 196 F.3d 1008, 1010 

(9th Cir. 1999). 

 For a petitioner to have fairly presented his claims to the appropriate state courts, 

he must have described the operative facts and the federal legal theory that support his 

Case 2:12-cv-00839-GMS Document 29 Filed 09/23/13 Page 3 of 7
- 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 

specific claim. See Baldwin v. Reese, 541 U.S. 27, 29, 31 (2004); Scott v. Schriro, 567 

F.3d 573, 582 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam) (“Full and fair presentation . . . requires a 

petitioner to present the substance of his claim to the state courts, including a reference to 

a federal constitutional guarantee and a statement of facts that entitle the petitioner to 

relief.”), cert. denied sub nom Ryan v. Scott, 558 U.S. 1091 (2009). 

 If a petitioner has failed to “fairly present” his federal claims to the state courts—

and has therefore failed to fulfill AEDPA’s exhaustion requirement—the habeas court 

must determine whether state remedies are still available for the petitioner; if not, those 

claims are procedurally defaulted. See Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 735 n.1 

(1991) (“[I]f the petitioner failed to exhaust state remedies and the court to which the 

petitioner would be required to present his claims in order to meet the exhaustion 

requirement would now find the claims procedurally barred[,] . . . there is a procedural 

default for purposes of federal habeas . . . .”). 

 A habeas court will consider claims that the petitioner has procedurally defaulted 

only if he can demonstrate (1) cause for his failure to comply with state rules and actual 

prejudice or, in the very rare instance, (2) a miscarriage of justice. See Dretke v. Haley, 

541 U.S. 386, 388–89 (2004). “Cause” means “some objective factor external to the 

defense impeded counsel’s efforts to comply with the State’s procedural rule.” Murray v. 

Carrier, 477 U.S. 478, 488 (1986). Even if a petitioner demonstrates cause for a 

procedural default, he must nevertheless show “prejudice” or that the supposed 

constitutional error “worked to his actual and substantial disadvantage, infecting his 

entire trial with error of constitutional dimensions.” United States v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152, 

170 (1982). Finally, a miscarriage of justice is shorthand for a situation “where a 

constitutional violation has ‘probably resulted’ in the conviction of one who is ‘actually 

innocent’ of the substantive offense.” Dretke, 541 U.S. at 393 (quoting Murray v. 

Carrier, 477 U.S. 478, 496 (1986)). 

/ / / 

/ / / 

Case 2:12-cv-00839-GMS Document 29 Filed 09/23/13 Page 4 of 7
- 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 

II. APPLICATION 

Magistrate Judge Duncan correctly concluded that De Los Rios’s claims are both 

unexhausted and procedurally defaulted. 

A. Exhaustion 

1. Ground One: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel 

 In Ground One, De Los Rios argues that trial counsel rendered ineffective 

assistance in failing to object to the amended indictment. De Los Rios failed to properly 

raise this particular claim in state court and thus has not exhausted the claim. In his 

petition for post-conviction relief, he argued that in denying defense counsel’s motion to 

limit argument regarding the murder count, resulting in an improper amendment to the 

indictment, the trial court denied him the effective assistance of counsel. (Doc. 11, Ex. D 

at 1–2.) That is a different claim from Ground One in the instant petition. De Los Rios 

raised the claim in Ground One for the first time in his petition for review of the denial of 

his petition for post-conviction relief to the Arizona Court of Appeals. (Id., Ex. F at 4–5.) 

The presentation of one ground of ineffective assistance in the post-conviction 

proceeding does not exhaust other grounds related to counsel’s performance and raised 

for the first time in a petition for review. See Beaty v. Stewart, 303 F.3d 975, 989–90 (9th 

Cir. 2002). Therefore, Ground One was not fairly presented and is unexhausted. 

2. Ground Two: Counsel’s Failure to Provide Complete Copies of 

Discovery 

 In Ground Two, De Los Rios claims that trial counsel failed to provide him with 

complete copies of discovery. De Los Rios made this argument on direct appeal, but the 

Court of Appeals declined to address the claim because it related to De Los Rios’s 

representation and was not properly before the court. (Doc. 11, Ex. A at 7–8.) De Los 

Rios made the same claim in his notice of post-conviction relief (Id., Ex. C at 8), but he 

did not actually raise the claim in his subsequent pro se petition or in his petition for 

review. Therefore, Ground Two was not fairly presented and is unexhausted. 

/ / / 

Case 2:12-cv-00839-GMS Document 29 Filed 09/23/13 Page 5 of 7
- 6 - 

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 

B. Procedural Default 

 De Los Rios would have no state remedy were he to return to state court and thus 

his claims are procedurally defaulted. The Court will not consider his procedurally 

defaulted claims as he has neither established cause and prejudice nor a miscarriage of 

justice to excuse the default. Dretke, 541 U.S. at 388–89. 

 To establish cause, De Los Rios must show that he was prevented from complying 

with the procedural rule by the ineffective assistance he received. However, his claims of 

ineffective assistance do not relate to his failure to exhaust either of his current claims. 

Further, De Los Rios filed his post-conviction petition pro se. Thus, De Los Rios has not 

shown that it was his counsel’s deficient performance that prevented him from fairly 

presenting either his ineffective assistance claim or claim regarding the failure to provide 

complete copies of discovery to state court. De Los Rios does not raise any other claims 

or facts that could constitute cause. The Court need not examine the existence of 

prejudice if the petitioner fails to establish cause. Engle v. Isaac, 456 U.S. 107, 134 n. 43 

(1982); Thomas v. Lewis, 945 F.2d 1119, 1123 n. 10 (9th Cir. 1991). 

 De Los Rios asserts that the violations asserted in his petition amount to a 

miscarriage of justice. (Doc. 23 at 5–6.) A successful miscarriage of justice claim 

requires a showing that the constitutional violations “‘probably resulted’ in the conviction 

of one who is ‘actually innocent’ of the substantive offense.” Dretke, 541 U.S. at 393. 

That, in turn, requires presentation of new evidence that “it is more likely than not that no 

reasonable juror would have found petitioner guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” Schlup, 

513 U.S. at 327. De Los Rios asserts that he is actually innocent, but he does not 

elaborate. (Doc. 23 at 6.) He provides no new evidence to support this assertion. 

 Further, procedural errors like those raised by De Los Rios are insufficient to 

make a showing of miscarriage of justice. Only new evidence that shows that no 

reasonable juror would have found Petitioner guilty beyond a reasonable doubt will 

suffice. In the absence of such evidence, De Los Rios fails to establish a miscarriage of 

justice. 

Case 2:12-cv-00839-GMS Document 29 Filed 09/23/13 Page 6 of 7
- 7 - 

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, both Grounds One and Two of De Los Rios’s petition are 

procedurally defaulted. 

CONCLUSION

 De Los Rios’s claims in Ground One and Ground Two are unexhausted and 

procedurally defaulted. Thus, the Court denies his petition. The Court also denies De Los 

Rios’s Motions to Produce Documents as they are now moot. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Duncan’s Report and 

Recommendation (Doc. 13) is ACCEPTED. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Paul Bryan De Los Rios’s Petition for Writ of 

Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) is DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a Certificate of Appealability and leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is DENIED because De Los Rios has not made a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED De Los Rios’s Motions to Produce Documents 

(Docs. 24-25) are DENIED. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate this action and 

enter judgment accordingly. 

 Dated this 23rd day of September, 2013. 

Case 2:12-cv-00839-GMS Document 29 Filed 09/23/13 Page 7 of 7