Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00804/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00804-0/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

Cardell Gauf, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

J. Ontiveres, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 06-0804-PHX-DGC (JCG)

ORDER

Petitioner, Cardell Gauf, who is presently confined in the Kaibab North Unit of the

Arizona State Prison Complex in Winslow, Arizona, has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pursuant to the Rules of Practice of this Court, this

matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Guerin for Report and Recommendation. Before the

Court are the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”) (Doc. No. 1), Respondents’

Response to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Answer”) (Doc. No. 13), and Petitioner's

Reply (Doc. No. 17). The Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court deny the

Petition.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On May 4, 2001, the Maricopa County Grand Jury indicted Petitioner on two counts:

armed robbery, a Class 2 dangerous felony, and aggravated assault, a Class 3 dangerous

felony. (Answer, Ex. A.) The State further alleged that Petitioner had seven prior felony

convictions, dating back to 1975, and that the armed robbery was a dangerous offense

because Petitioner used a knife. (Answer, Exs. B & C.) On August 23, 2001, the jury found

Petitioner guilty on both counts. (Answer, Ex. E.) The trial court sentenced Petitioner to 18

Case 2:06-cv-00804-DGC Document 20 Filed 04/12/07 Page 1 of 8
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

1

 A copy of Petitioner’s supplemental brief was not provided to this Court by either

Petitioner or Respondents. The contents of Petitioner’s supplemental brief are therefore

determined by review of the Court of Appeals memorandum decision. 

- 2 -

years’ imprisonment for armed robbery with two prior felony convictions, and 13 years’

imprisonment for aggravated assault with two prior felony convictions, to be served

consecutively. (Answer, Ex. H.) 

On November 3, 2001, Petitioner filed a pro se notice of post-conviction relief.

(Answer. Ex. J.) On March 4, 2002, Petitioner filed a counseled motion to withdraw his

notice of post-conviction relief without prejudice pending the outcome of his direct appeal.

The trial court granted the motion on April 18, 2002. (Answer, Ex. L.) 

On May 3, 2002, Petitioner’s counsel filed an opening appellate brief under Anders

v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) stating that she fond no arguable question of law that was

not frivolous. (Answer, Ex. M.) Counsel noted, however, that Petitioner had requested that

she raise the following issues:

(1) Pretrial identification done by potential witnesses on the day of trial but before

commencement of trial;

(2) Three key prosecution witnesses identified Petitioner with the help of

prosecution before those witnesses were sworn in;

(3) Pretrial identification was extremely prejudicial and tainted the jury. (Id.)

The Court of Appeals granted Petitioner an opportunity to file a supplemental brief;

Petitioner did so, raising three additional issues:

(1) ineffective assistance of counsel;

(1) prosecutorial misconduct, and

(2) judicial error.

(Answer, Ex. N).1

 On October 29, 2002, the Court of Appeals issued a memoradum decision

affirming Petitioner's conviction. (Answer, Ex. N). Petitioner did not file a petition for

review by the rizona Supreme Court. 

Case 2:06-cv-00804-DGC Document 20 Filed 04/12/07 Page 2 of 8
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 October 2, 2002, Petitioner filed a pro se notice of post-conviction relief. (Answer,

Ex. O.) On December 16, 2002, Petitioner’s counsel filed a notice of completion of postconviction review, stating that she was unable to find any colorable claims for relief to raise

on Petitioner’s behalf. (Answer, Ex. P.) Petitioner subsequently filed a pro se Rule 32

petition on February 5, 2003, raising six claims for relief:

(1) A statement obtained in the absence of a lawyer at a time when representation

was constitutionally required was admitted at trial;

(2) Petitioner was denied effective assistance of trial counsel because (a) trial

counsel would not let him review his file, (b) trial counsel refused his request

to continue his arraignment, (c) trial counsel was unkind to him, (d) trial

counsel refused to get him a doctor not employed by the State, (e) trial counsel

lied to him, (f) trial counsel failed to argue that one of the witnesses was lying

during testimony, (g) trial counsel failed to object to the prosecution’s

argument in favor of sentence-enhancement, (h) trial counsel failed to inform

Petitioner’s family of the court dates, (i) trial counsel failed to object to

arguments made by the prosecution during trial, (j) trial counsel failed to

answer Petitioner’s phone calls, (k) trial counsel failed to depose one of the

witnesses prior to trial, and (l) trial counsel stated during sentencing that a

child was present during the armed robbery;

(3) The trial court lacked jurisdiction over Petitioner’s trial;

(4) In determining Petitioner’s sentence, the trial court considered a prior

conviction obtained in violation of the United States or Arizona constitutions,

and

(5) The trial court’s sentence violated sentencing procedures established by rule

or statute.

(Answer, Ex. Q.) On November 14, 2003, the trial court summarily dismissed Petitioner’s

Rule 32 petition. (Answer, Ex. T.)

Case 2:06-cv-00804-DGC Document 20 Filed 04/12/07 Page 3 of 8
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 -

On October 19, 2004, Petitioner filed a pro se petition for review by the Arizona Court

of Appeals, in which he presented three claims:

(1) Petitioner was denied effective assistance of trial counsel because (a) trial

counsel failed to object to the trial court’s finding of two prior convictions

without a determination that Petitioner was represented by counsel during the

prior felony proceedings, (b) trial counsel failed to object to the trial court’s

failure to impose community supervision terms during sentencing, (c) trial

counsel failed to object to the trial court’s imposition of aggravated terms of

imprisonment, (d) trial counsel failed to object to the trial court’s nullification

of the jury’s verdict of dangerous for both offenses, (e) trial counsel advised

Petitioner not to testify, (f) trial counsel failed to request jury instructions on

a lesser included offense, (g) trial counsel failed to impeach witness with prior

inconsistent statements, (h) trial counsel misled Petitioner into believing his

case would be dismissed, and therefore Petitioner decided not to plead guilty,

(i) trial counsel failed to properly communicate with Petitioner, and (j) trial

counsel failed to request discovery of the fingerprints found on the weapon

used at the scene;

(2) Petitioner was denied effective assistance of appellate counsel, and

(3) Petitioner was denied due process when the trial court refused to conduct a

fact-finding hearing regarding Petitioner’s claim that his trial counsel was

ineffective and his request for appointment of new counsel.

(Answer, Ex. U.) On August 10, 2005, the Court of Appeals summarily denied Petitioner’s

petition. (Answer, Ex. W.)

Case 2:06-cv-00804-DGC Document 20 Filed 04/12/07 Page 4 of 8
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

 Petitioner's Petition is somewhat hard to follow because Petitioner identifies a

specific "Ground" by heading but then raises several different issues within that Ground. The

Court has construed each issue identified by Petitioner as a separate Ground, despite the

captioning of the Petition.

- 5 -

On March 20, 2006, Petitioner filed his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in federal

court. In his Petition, Petitioner presents three claims for relief:2

Ground 1: Petitioner was denied effective assistance of trial counsel because his trial

counsel failed to move for discovery of latent fingerprints on the weapon involved in the

armed robbery;

Ground 2: Petitioner was denied effective assistance of appellate counsel, and 

Ground 3: Petitioner’s sentence violated Blakely v. Washington.

DISCUSSION

 The Magistrate recommends that the Petition be denied because Petitioner has failed

to exhaust his state court remedies with respect to Grounds 1, 2 and 3.

Ordinarily, before a federal court will consider the merits of a habeas petition, the

petitioner must exhaust the remedies available to him in state court. 28 U.S.C.

§2254(b)(1)(A); Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 275 (1971). First enunciated in Ex parte

Royall, 117 U.S. 241 (1886), the exhaustion requirement is designed "not to create a

procedural hurdle on the path to federal habeas court, but to channel claims into an

appropriate forum, where meritorious claims may be vindicated and unfounded litigation

obviated before resort to federal court." Keeney v. Tamayo-Reyes, 504 U.S. 1, 10 (1992).

The requirement is grounded in principles of comity, and reflects a desire to protect state

courts' role in the enforcement of federal law. Castille v. Peoples, 489 U.S. 346, 349 (1989)

(citation omitted). The requirement is also based on a pragmatic consideration that fully

exhausted claims will usually be accompanied by a complete factual record once they reach

federal court. Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 519 (1982). 

Case 2:06-cv-00804-DGC Document 20 Filed 04/12/07 Page 5 of 8
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 -

A petitioner must exhaust his claims by fairly presenting them in state 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, 455 U.S. at 519. A

petitioner must have also presented his claim in a procedural context in which its merits will

be considered. See Castille, 489 U.S. at 351. A habeas petitioner's claims may be precluded

from federal review on exhaustion grounds in either of two ways. First, a claim may be

procedurally defaulted in federal court if it was actually raised in state court but found by that

court to be defaulted on state procedural grounds. See Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722,

729-30 (1991). Second, the claim may be procedurally defaulted in federal court if the

petitioner failed to present the claim in a necessary state court 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." Id. at 735 n.1. If a petitioner

has procedurally defaulted a claim in state court, a federal court will not review the claim

unless the petitioner shows "cause and prejudice" for the failure to present the constitutional

issue to the state court, or makes a colorable showing of actual innocence. See Gray v.

Netherland, 518 U.S. 152, 162 (1996); Sawyer v. Whitley, 505 U.S. 333, 337 (1992); Murray

v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478, 485 (1986).

1. Ground 1

To properly exhaust state remedies, the petitioner must "fairly present" his claims in

state court. See O'Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 848 (1999). A claim is "fairly

presented" if the petitioner has described the operative facts and the federal legal theory on

which his claim is based so that the state courts have a fair opportunity to apply controlling

legal principles to the facts bearing upon his constitutional claim. Anderson v. Harless, 459

U.S. 4, 6 (1982). In his federal Petition, Petitioner alleges only one set of operative facts in

support of his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel: Petitioner was denied effective

assistance of trial counsel because his trial counsel failed to move for discovery of latent

fingerprints on the weapon involved in the armed robbery. These facts were also alleged in

Case 2:06-cv-00804-DGC Document 20 Filed 04/12/07 Page 6 of 8
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 -

support of the ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim raised by Petitioner in his petition

for review by the Arizona Court of Appeals. They were not, however, raised in Petitioner’s

Rule 32 petition. Ground 1 was therefore not properly raised in state court. 

2. Ground 2

Petitioner has failed to exhaust Ground 2 of his Petition. Petitioner failed to present

Grounds 2 to the state trial court prior to filing his federal Petition, and instead raised a claim

of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for the first time in his petition for review by

the Arizona Court of Appeals. Ground 2 of the Petition was therefore not properly raised in

state court.

2. Ground 3

To properly exhaust state remedies, the petitioner must "fairly present" his claims in

state court. See O'Sullivan, 526 U.S. at 848. A claim is "fairly presented" if the petitioner

has described the operative facts and the federal legal theory on which his claim is based so

that the state courts have a fair opportunity to apply controlling legal principles to the facts

bearing upon his constitutional claim. See Anderson, 459 U.S. at 6. Petitioner did not fairly

present Ground 3 to the state court prior to filing his federal Petition. Although Petitioner

claim in his Rule 32 petition that “the trial court’s sentence violated sentencing procedures

established by rule or statute,” (Answer, Ex. Q), Petitioner did not specifically argue to the

trial court that his sentence violated his federal constitutional rights because it was issued in

violation of Blakely v. Washington. Thus, Petitioner did not present his sentencing claim as

a federal legal claim in state court. Moreover, Petitioner did not raise the sentencing issue

in his petition for review by the Arizona Court of Appeals. See Swoopes v. Sublett, 196 F.3d

1008, 1010 (9th Cir. 1999) (holding that, in cases not carrying a life sentence or the death

penalty, "claims of Arizona state prisoners are exhausted for purposes of federal habeas once

the Arizona Court of Appeals has ruled on them.").

Petitioner did not properly present Grounds 1, 2 or 3 in either his direct appeal or his

Rule 32 petition and cannot raise those claims for the first time in federal court. Petitioner

Case 2:06-cv-00804-DGC Document 20 Filed 04/12/07 Page 7 of 8
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 -

is now precluded by Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure 32.2(a)(3) and 32.4 from obtaining

relief on Grounds 1, 2 and 3 in state court absent an applicable exception, which Petitioner

does not assert. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b); 32.1(d)-(h). Thus, Grounds 1, 2 and 3 are

technically exhausted but procedurally defaulted, absent a showing of cause and prejudice

or a fundamental miscarriage of justice. See Coleman, 501 U.S. at 749-50 (citations omitted;

internal quotation marks omitted); Thomas v. Goldsmith, 979 F.2d 746, 749 (9th Cir. 1992).

Petitioner has not presented any arguments in his Petition which constitute a showing of

cause and prejudice or a fundamental miscarriage of justice. Petitioner argues in his Reply

that he was unable to exhaust his state court remedies because he is illiterate and was not

provided with any assistance in preparing his pro se filings. A claim of illiteracy, however,

is insufficient to meet the cause standard. See Hughes v. Idaho State Bd. of Corrections, 800

F.2d 905 (9th Cir. 1986). Accordingly, Petitioner is not entitled to relief on Grounds 1, 2 or

3.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court enter

an order DENYING the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b), any party may serve and file written objections within

ten days of being served with a copy of the Report and Recommendation. If objections are

not timely filed, they may be deemed waived. If objections are filed, the parties should use

the following case number: No. CV 06-0804-PHX-DGC.

The Clerk is directed to mail a copy of the Report and Recommendation to Petitioner

and counsel for Respondents.

DATED this 10th day of April, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-00804-DGC Document 20 Filed 04/12/07 Page 8 of 8