Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02290/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02290-0/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

Victor Leon Uriarte,

Petitioner, 

vs.

Warden McDaniels, et al.,

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV-06-2290-PHX-PGR (JCG)

REPORT & RECOMMENDATION

Petitioner Victor Leon Uriarte, presently incarcerated at the Reeves County Detention

Center in Pecos, Texas, 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) and Respondents’ Answer to Petition for Writ

of Habeas Corpus (“Answer”) (Doc. No. 8). Petitioner did not file a Reply. The Magistrate

Judge recommends that the District Court dismiss the petition on the ground that it is time

barred.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On September 19, 2003, Petitioner pled guilty to possession of narcotic drugs for sale

and the use of wire or electronic communications in a drug-related transaction. (Answer, Ex.

C.) The trial court accepted the plea and entered it on the record on September 23, 2003.

(Answer, Ex. D.) On December 8, 2003, the trial court sentenced Petitioner to an aggravated,

8-year prison term for possession of narcotic drugs for sale, and a concurrent, presumptive,

Case 2:06-cv-02290-PGR Document 9 Filed 03/28/07 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

2 1⁄2 year prison term for use of wire or electronic communications in a drug transaction.

(Answer, Ex. F.) 

Because Petitioner pled guilty to non-capital offenses, A.R.S. § 13-4033(B) prohibited

him from filing a direct appeal. On March 8, 2004, Petitioner file a notice of post-conviction

relief in the trial court. (Answer, Ex. G.) Petitioner filed his Rule 32 petition on August 13,

2004, in which he presented one claim: that his sentence violated Blakely v. Washington, 542

U.S. 296 (2004). (Answer, Ex. H.) On December 10, 2004, the trial court dismissed

Petitioner's Rule 32 petition. (Answer, Ex. J.) Petitioner did not file a petition for review

with the Arizona Court of Appeals.

On September 25, 2006, Petitioner filed his present federal habeas petition in this

Court. (Doc. No. 1.) In his Petition, Petitioner argues that (1) his sentence violated his right

to a fair trial because the trial court applied a harmless error analysis in considering his

Blakely claim, (2) Petitioner's sentence violated Blakely, and (3) Petitioner's constitutional

right to have aggravating factors determined beyond a reasonable doubt at sentencing was

violated.

DISCUSSION

Federal petitions for writ of habeas corpus filed by state prisoners are governed by a

one-year statute of limitations period. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1).

The statute of limitations begins to run from the latest of: (1) the date on which the

judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for

seeking such review; (2) the date on which the impediment to filing an application created

by State action in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States is removed, if the

applicant was prevented from filing by such State action; (3) the date on which the

constitutional right asserted was initially recognized by the Supreme Court, if the right has

been newly recognized by the Supreme Court and made retroactively applicable to cases on

collateral review; or (4) the date on which the factual predicate of the claim or claims

presented could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence. 28 U.S.C. §

2244(d)(1). 

Case 2:06-cv-02290-PGR Document 9 Filed 03/28/07 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

Of these possible starting dates, only the first and third are relevant to the present

action. Petitioner does not allege that he was unconstitutionally impeded from timely filing

the present federal Petition. Nor does Petitioner allege that his Petition is predicated on

newly-discovered evidence that could not have been discovered earlier through the exercise

of due diligence. 

The judgment against Petitioner became final on December 8, 2003, when he was

sentenced, because, under Arizona law, Petitioner waived his right to direct appeal by

pleading guilty. See A.R.S. § 13-4033(B) ("In noncapital cases a defendant may not appeal

from a judgment or sentence that is entered pursuant to a plea agreement or an admission to

a probation violation."); see also Rule 17.1(e), Ariz. R. Crim. P. ("By pleading guilty or no

contest in a noncapital case, a defendant waives the right to have the appellate courts review

the proceedings by way of direct appeal, and may seek review only by filing a petition for

post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 32 and, if denied, a petition for review."). 

Petitioner alleges in his Petition, however, that his sentence violates Blakely. Blakely

was decided on June 24, 2004. See 542 U.S. 296 (2004). If Blakely recognized a new

constitutional right and made that right retroactive to cases on collateral review, then,

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1), Petitioner's statute of limitations began to run on June

24, 2004. However, Blakely does not apply retroactively on collateral review. See Schardt

v. Payne, 414 F.3d 1025, 1036 (9th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, Petitioner's began to run on

December 8, 2003, the date that his conviction became final, not on the date that the Blakely

decision was issued. 

The statute of limitations is tolled during the time that a properly filed application for

state post-conviction relief is pending. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2). Thus, the statute of

limitations in this case was tolled from March 8, 2004 (the date that Petitioner filed his notice

of post-conviction relief) until December 10, 2004 (the date that the trial court dismissed

Petitioner's Rule 32 petition). Petitioner allowed 91 days to elapse between the time that his

conviction became final and the date that he initiated post-conviction relief proceedings in

state court. He therefore had 274 days, or until September 11, 2005, to file his federal

Case 2:06-cv-02290-PGR Document 9 Filed 03/28/07 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

Petition. Petitioner did not file his federal Petition until September 25, 2006, more than a full

year after his 1-year limitations period had expired. 

 Equitable tolling may be available even after the statute of limitations period has

expired if "extraordinary circumstances beyond a prisoner's control make it impossible to file

a petition on time." Calderon v. United States Dist. Ct. (Beeler), 128 F.3d 1283, 1288 (9th

Cir. 1997), overruled on other grounds, Calderon v. United States Dist. Ct., 163 F.3d 530

(9th Cir. 1998)(en banc). Equitable tolling is appropriate only if extraordinary circumstances

beyond a prisoner's control make it impossible to file a petition on time, and is unavailable

in most cases. Miranda v. Castro, 292 F.3d 1063, 1066 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Miles v.

Prunty, 187 F.3d 1104, 1107 (9th Cir.1999) and Beeler, 128 F.3d at 1288). Petitioner has

not argued that he was unable to timely file the pending petition due to extraordinary

circumstances beyond his control. Accordingly, the Petition is time-barred.

RECOMMENDATION

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

enter an order DISMISSING 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. The parties are advised that

any objections filed are to be identified with the following case number: CV-06-2290-

PHX-PGR.

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

Petitioner and counsel for Respondents.

DATED this 27th day of March, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-02290-PGR Document 9 Filed 03/28/07 Page 4 of 4