Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-02063/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-02063-1/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

Ernie Pete Ortega,

Petitioner, 

vs.

Dora Schriro, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-02063-PHX-MHM (JCG)

ORDER

Petitioner pro se, Ernie Pete Ortega (“Petitioner”), filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) on October 22, 2007 (Dkt. #1). The matter was

referred to United States Judge Magistrate Jennifer C. Guerin, who issued a Report and

Recommendation (Dkt. #9), recommending that the Court deny and dismiss with prejudice

the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Petitioner filed a written objection to the Report and

Recommendation on April 7, 2008 (Dkt. #12). Respondents have not filed an opposition to

the Report and Recommendation.

I. BACKGROUND

The relevant facts of the case, as related by Magistrate Judge Guerin, are as

follows. Petitioner was convicted by a jury of one count of reckless manslaughter, a class

two felony, on October 22, 2002. (Dkt. #7, Exh. A.) On February 21, 2003, Petitioner was

sentenced to 13 years in prison. (Dkt. #7, Exh. B.) The evidence presented to the jury

Case 2:07-cv-02063-MHM Document 15 Filed 03/03/09 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 -

established that Petitioner shot the victim while “messing around” with a gun.(Dkt. #7,

Exh. I.) Petitioner admitted to a friend that he was responsible for the shooting. (Id.) After

shooting the victim, Petitioner dragged the victim out of Petitioner’s residence to a nearby

vacant lot. Blood was found on Petitioner’s clothing, and boxes of ammunition, a holster,

a spent shell casing and the victim’s backpack were found in Petitioner’s residence. (Id.) 

Petitioner filed a direct appeal in which he presented a single argument: that

Petitioner could not have acted recklessly because he did not point the gun at the victim

when firing it. (Dkt. #7, Exh. C.) The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed Petitioner’s

conviction on December 4, 2003, finding that there was sufficient evidence to support the

reckless manslaughter conviction. (Dkt. #7, Exh. C.) On January 20, 2004, the order and

mandate in Petitioner’s direct appeal was issued. (Dkt. #7, Exh.C.)

On January 9, 2004, Petitioner filed a timely Notice of Post-Conviction Relief.

(Dkt. #7, Exh.D.) Counsel for Petitioner filed a Notice of Completion on April 21, 2004,

averring that there were no meritorious claims on which to base a claim for relief under

Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32 (1973). (Dkt. #7, Exh. E.) Petitioner filed a pro se

petition (“First Rule 32 Petition”) in the Maricopa County Superior Court on June 4,

2004, claiming that (1) there was insufficient evidence to support the jury’s guilty verdict,

(2) the trial court abused its discretion when it denied Petitioner’s motion for mistrial, and

(3) Petitioner received ineffective assistance of counsel when trial counsel: (a) allowed

key witnesses to lie to the jury, (b) failed to call any defense witnesses, (c) failed to

present letters written by the victim as evidence, (d) failed to obtain DNA evidence, (e)

failed to argue that Petitioner was denied counsel during questioning following his arrest,

(f) failed to present evidence of the victim’s criminal history, (g) failed to properly

investigate the case and (h) failed to afford Petitioner an opportunity to review all of the

evidence. (Dkt. #7, Exh. F.) The trial court denied relief. (Dkt. #7, Exh. I.) Petitioner filed

a petition for review of the trial court’s decision in the Arizona Court of Appeals; the

Court of Appeals summarily dismissed the petition on July 14, 2005. (Dkt. #7, Exh. K.)

Case 2:07-cv-02063-MHM Document 15 Filed 03/03/09 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 -

On August 19, 2005, Petitioner filed a second Notice of Post Conviction-Relief,

which was later amended (“Second Rule 32 Petition”), in which he argued that he

received ineffective assistance of trial counsel when trial counsel (a) failed to obtain DNA

evidence and (b) represented Petitioner despite a conflict of interest. (Dkt. #7, Exh. L.)

The Superior Court dismissed Petitioner’s Second Rule 32 Petition as untimely on

October 18, 2005. (Dkt. #7, Exh. M.) The Petitioner did not seek review of the dismissal.

On November 1, 2006, Petitioner filed a pleading captioned as an “Appeal Petition

for Writ for Habeas Corpus” in the state court, in which he presented six claims for relief:

(1) various state actors, including the prosecution and defense counsels and several

judges, conspired to deprive Petitioner of his constitutional rights, (2) the prosecutor

engaged in prosecutorial misconduct, (3) trial counsel was ineffective because he

represented Petitioner while operating under a conflict of interest, (4) Petitioner received

ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing, (5) Petitioner received ineffective

assistance of appellate counsel and (6) Petitioner received ineffective assistance of

counsel during post-conviction relief proceedings. (Dkt. #7, Exh. N.) The trial court

treated the pleading as a petition pursuant to Rule 32 (“Third Rule 32 Petition”) and

dismissed it as successive. (Dkt. #7, Exh. O.) The Arizona Court of Appeals denied

review of the dismissal on September 19, 2007. (Dkt. #7, Exh. P.)

Petitioner filed his federal Petition on November 1, 2006. The Petition presents

three claims for relief:

Ground 1: The prosecutor engaged in prosecutorial misconduct before and during

trial;

Ground 2: Petitioner received ineffective assistance of counsel when (a) trial

counsel represented Petitioner despite a conflict of interest, (b) trial counsel failed to

present DNA evidence, (c) trial counsel failed to object to perjured testimony, (d) trial

counsel failed to present mitigating evidence during sentencing, (e) appellate counsel only

filed an opening brief on Petitioner’s behalf, (f) appellate counsel failed to timely raise

Case 2:07-cv-02063-MHM Document 15 Filed 03/03/09 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

- 4 -

claims on appeal and (g) post-conviction relief counsel filed a Notice of Completion of

Post-Conviction Review.

Ground 3: State actors including prosecution and defense counsel, State Superior

and Appeals Court judges, police detectives, court reporters and the records department

conspired against Petitioner.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

A district court must review the legal analysis in a Magistrate Judge’s Report and

Recommendation de novo. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) (2000). In addition, a district court

must review the factual analysis in the Report and Recommendation de novo for those facts

to which objections are filed. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th

Cir. 2003) (en banc); see also § 636(b)(1)(C) (“A judge of the court shall make a de novo

determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or

recommendations to which objection is made.”). “Failure to object to a magistrate judge’s

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

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

III. DISCUSSION

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

agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the Petition should be denied and dismissed with

prejudice. In opposition to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, the

Petitioner has filed several objections (Dkt. # 12), which the Court has reviewed de novo.

Upon such review, the Court finds the Petitioner’s arguments to be unpersuasive. Petitioner

objects to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation on two grounds: (1) Petitioner

reasserts the ineffective assistance of counsel claim that trial counsel failed to present DNA

evidence; and (2) Petitioner reasserts the ineffective assistance of counsel claim that trial

counsel failed to object to perjured testimony.

In addition, Petitioner offers several new objections: (1) Petitioner rehashes trial

evidence; (2) Petitioner reasserts facts asserted in the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

without raising any meritorious argument; (3) Petitioner asserts new arguments not asserted

Case 2:07-cv-02063-MHM Document 15 Filed 03/03/09 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 -

in the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus; (4) Petitioner asserts that there is a pending motion

for a mistrial in state trial court; and (5) Petitioner asserts that a mental illness has prevented

Petitioner from properly and timely asserting grounds for relief. 

Further, Petitioner requests an evidentiary hearing and appointment of counsel.

A. Objection I

In reasserting the claimthat trial counsel failed to present DNA evidence and therefore

was ineffective, Petitioner merely rehashes previously stated arguments. Although Petitioner

argued in his First Rule 32 Petition that his trial counsel was ineffective because he “fail[ed]

to bring up that DNA was took [sic]” (Dkt. #7, Exh. F, p. 8), the trial court did not consider

these factual allegations in reviewing Petitioner’s multifaceted claim for ineffective

assistance of counsel. Where a state court gives no reasoned explanation for its decision on

a petitioner's federal claim, this Court reviews the record before it to determine whether the

state court’s denial of that claim constituted an unreasonable application of clearly

established federal law. See Greene v. Lambert, 288 F.3d 1081, 1088-89 (9thCir. 2002). In

this case, federal law mandates that, in order to prevail upon a claim of ineffective assistance

of counsel, a defendant must demonstrate that counsel's performance was deficient and that

he suffered actual prejudice as a result of counsel's actions or inaction. See Strickland v.

Washington, 466 US 668, 668 (1984). 

Petitioner does not explain what the DNA evidence would have proven or how it

would have aided his defense. Assuming that the DNA evidence at issue is the same

evidence discussed in Ground II, trial counsel was not ineffective for failure to obtain or

present the DNA evidence. At best, the DNA evidence might have suggested that

Petitioner did not have the victim’s blood under his fingernails or powder burns on his

hands at the time of his arrest. As stated above, however, the facts of this case indicate

that Petitioner admitted to shooting the victim and the state presented significant physical

evidence linking Petitioner to the crime. Given this evidence and Petitioner’s admission

of the crime, the jury was confronted with significant proof of Petitioner’s guilt even if

Petitioner did not have blood or powder burns on his person when he was arrested. Thus

Case 2:07-cv-02063-MHM Document 15 Filed 03/03/09 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 -

the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that

his counsel was deficient or that Petitioner suffered actual prejudice as required by

Strickland. Accordingly, the Court finds that Petitioner does not present any new grounds

warranting relief.

B. Objection II

In reasserting the claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to

perjured testimony, Petitioner merely rehashes previously stated arguments. The Court

agrees with the Magistrate Judge that in considering the Rule 32 petition, the trial court

applied the appropriate federal law by relying on the legal standard set forth in Strickland

v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984): a defendant must demonstrate that counsel's

performance was deficient and that he suffered actual prejudice as a result of counsel's

actions or inaction. (Dkt. #7, Exh. I, p. 2).

Although the trial court incorrectly concluded that Petitioner had failed to show

that any witness lied on the witness stand, the trial court’s application of Strickland to the

facts before it was reasonable and the trial court was nonetheless correct in concluding

that Petitioner’s counsel was effective. Even if Petitioner’s counsel failed to object to

Detective Thompson’s false statement that no DNA tests were conducted (assuming, as

Petitioner alleges, that such a false statement was actually made), the failure to object was

a reasonable tactical decision, as there was nothing to gain by such impeachment. At best,

Petitioner’s trial counsel could have impeached Detective Thompson by presenting

evidence that in fact, DNA testing was conducted and that Petitioner did not have the

victim’s blood under his fingernails or powder burns on his hands at the time of his arrest.

This evidence would do little to support an argument that Petitioner did not commit the

crime, given that (1) Petitioner admitted to “accidentally” shooting the victim while

“messing around” with a gun, (2) evidence demonstrated that Petitioner dragged the

victim’s body out of Petitioner’s residence to a vacant lot, blood was found on

Petitioner’s clothing, and police found boxes of ammunition, a holster, a spent shell

casing and the victim’s backpack in Petitioner’s residence. A tactical decision by counsel

Case 2:07-cv-02063-MHM Document 15 Filed 03/03/09 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 -

with which the Petitioner disagrees cannot form the basis of a claim of ineffective

assistance of counsel. Wildman v. Johnson, 261 F.3d 832, 839 (9thCir. 2001). In addition,

Petitioner has failed to demonstrate a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's errors

and omissions, the result of the proceeding would have been different. Strickland, 466

U.S. at 694. Given the significant evidence demonstrating Petitioner’s guilt, the DNA

evidence suggesting that Petitioner did not have the victim’s blood or powder burns on

his person at the time of his arrest would not have changed the outcome of the trial

Accordingly, the Court finds that Petitioner does not present any new grounds

warranting relief.

C. Objections III and IV

In rehashing trial evidence and reasserting facts asserted in the Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus, Petitioner does not raise any new argument. Accordingly, the Court finds

that Petitioner does not present any new grounds warranting relief. 

D. Objection V

Petitioner asserts new arguments not asserted in the Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus. A petitioner must exhaust his claims by fairly presenting them to the state's

highest court, either through a direct appeal or collateral proceedings, before a federal

court will consider the merits of Habeas Corpus claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See

Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 519 (1982). Petitioner’s assertion of new arguments is not

proper at this stage, and the Court will not consider them here.

E. Objection VI

Petitioner provides no evidence of a pending motion for a mistrial in state trial

court. Accordingly, the Court finds that Petitioner does not present any new grounds

warranting relief and will not consider this objection.

F. Objection VI

Petitioner asserts that a mental illness has prevented Petitioner from properly and

timely asserting grounds for relief. The record before the Court does not support this

assertion. The pleadings filed by Petitioner in state court indicate that Petitioner was able

Case 2:07-cv-02063-MHM Document 15 Filed 03/03/09 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 -

to clearly articulate the legal and factual bases for his claims in his subsequently-filed

state court petitions. Petitioner has admitted to receiving legal assistance from other

prisoners and to having a paralegal review his pleadings before they were filed. Reply,

pgs. 4–5. Petitioner has been able to file a 1983 action in this Court in addition to the

pending federal Habeas Petition. See Ortega v. Schriro, United States District Court,

District of Arizona, Case No. CV-07-2451-PHX-MHM (JCG). It also appears that

Petitioner has been able to successfully avail himself of the ADOC’s internal grievance

system. Thus, there is nothing before the Court from which the Court can conclude that

Petitioner’s failure to properly present his claims in his First Rule 32 Petition, rather than

his Second or Third Rule 32 Petitions, was the result of his alleged mental illness. 

Accordingly, the Court finds that Petitioner does not present any new grounds

warranting relief.

IV. PETITIONER’S REQUESTS AND MOTION

A. Petitioner’s Request for an Evidentiary Hearing

 In his Response to Report and Recommendation (Dkt. #12), Petitioner requests an

evidentiary hearing. The Court presumes that “a determination of a factual issue made by

a State court” is correct. § 2254(e)(1) (2000). Petitioner must present clear and

convincing evidence to rebut this presumption. Id. Because Petitioner provides no clear

and convincing evidence, the Court finds that Petitioner does not present any grounds

warranting an evidentiary hearing. Accordingly, an evidentiary hearing will not be

granted.

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:07-cv-02063-MHM Document 15 Filed 03/03/09 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 -

B. Petitioner’s Request for Appointment of Counsel

In his Response to Report and Recommendation (Dkt. #12), Petitioner requests

that counsel be appointed. The Court may appoint counsel if “an evidentiary hearing is

warranted.” Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, R. 8, 28 U.S.C.A. foll. § 2254. Because the

Court does not find in Part IV.A that an evidentiary hearing is warranted, appointment of

counsel is not warranted. 

In the alternative, the Court may appoint counsel in proceedings brought under 

§ 2254. § 2254(h). This appointment is “governed by Section 3006A of title 18.” Id. 

18 U.S.C.A. 3006A(2) provides that counsel may be provided to those who cannot afford

it if it is determined “that the interests of justice so require.” Petitioner provides no

evidence to demonstrate that the interests of justice require appointment of counsel, and

the Court finds no such need. Because the Court does not find that the interests of justice

warrant the appointment of counsel, counsel will not be appointed..

C. Petitioner’s Motion for Court Order to A.D.C. to Provide Mental

Health Records

In a separate pleading, Petitioner makes a Motion for Court Order to A.D.C. to

Provide Mental Health Records (Dkt. #13). The pleadings filed by Petitioner in state court

indicate that Petitioner was able to clearly articulate the legal and factual bases for his

claims in his subsequently-filed state court petitions. The record before the Court does not

support a finding that a mental illness has prevented Petitioner from properly and 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:07-cv-02063-MHM Document 15 Filed 03/03/09 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 -

timely asserting grounds for relief. See discussion supra Part III.F. Therefore, an

examination of Petitioner’s mental health records is not warranted.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED OVERRULING Petitioner’s objections and ADOPTING the

Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. (Dkt. #9).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING and DISMISSING WITH

PREJUDICE Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (Dkt. #1).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING Petitioner’s Motion for Court Order to

A.D.C. to Provide Mental Health Records. (Dkt. #13).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of the Court to enter judgment

accordingly.

DATED this 2nd day of March, 2009.

Case 2:07-cv-02063-MHM Document 15 Filed 03/03/09 Page 10 of 10