Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00319/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00319-0/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Daniel Aguilar, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Dora B. Schriro; et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 08-0319-PHX-JAT

ORDER

Pending before this Court is Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. On

January 22, 2009, the Magistrate Judge to whom this case was assigned issued a Report and

Recommendation (R&R), in which the Judge recommended that the Petition be denied.

Petitioner timely filed objections to the R&R and Respondents filed a response to the

objections.

I. Review of R&R

This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or

recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). It is “clear that the

district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if

objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121

(9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original). District courts are not required to conduct

“any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn,

474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (emphasis added); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (“the court shall

Case 2:08-cv-00319-JAT Document 17 Filed 04/07/09 Page 1 of 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

1

 Further, in applying “Federal law” the state courts only need to act in accordance with

Supreme Court case law. See Clark v. Murphy, 331 F.3d 1062, 1069 (9th Cir. 2003).

- 2 -

make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] to which

objection is made.”).

The Petition in this case was filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 because Petitioner is

incarcerated based on a state conviction. With respect to any claims that Petitioner exhausted

before the state courts, under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2254(d)(1) and (2) this Court must deny the

Petition on those claims unless “a state court decision is contrary to, or involved an

unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law”1

 or was based on an

unreasonable determination of the facts. See Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 71 (2003).

Further, this Court must presume the correctness of the state court’s factual findings

regarding a petitioner’s claims. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1); Ortiz v. Stewart, 149 F.3d 923, 936

(9th Cir. 1998).

As discussed above, Petitioner filed objections to the R&R. This Court will review

the portions of the R&R to which Petitioner objected de novo.

II. Background

In the R&R, the Magistrate Judge made the following factual findings. Petitioner pled

guilty in Maricopa county superior court. Petitioner now seeks to return to superior court for

trial on the theory that his counsel was ineffective in his plea process. Petitioner raised his

claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in his petition for post-conviction relief. Neither

party has objected to these findings, and this Court accepts and adopts them.

III. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

As the Magistrate Judge correctly recited in the R&R, to prevail on an ineffective

assistance of counsel claim, Petitioner must show that his counsel’s performance fell below

an objective standard of reasonableness and that but for counsel’s unreasonable performance,

the result of the proceeding would have been different. R&R at 4 (citing Strickland v.

Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-90 (1984). In the context of a plea agreement, Petitioner

Case 2:08-cv-00319-JAT Document 17 Filed 04/07/09 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

“must show that there is a reasonable probability that but for counsel’s errors, he would not

have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial.” Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S.

52, 59 (1985). In this case, Petitioner claims his counsel was ineffective in three ways: 1)

counsel failed to advise Petitioner that the state would play a recording of Petitioner’s phone

calls while in custody at sentencing; 2) counsel failed to explain some of the terms of the plea

to Petitioner; and 3) counsel improperly induced Petitioner to enter into the plea.

A. Claim 1

As to Plaintiff’s first theory of ineffective assistance of counsel, in the R&R, the

Magistrate Judge concluded that the state court’s decision was not contrary to nor an

unreasonable application of federal law, nor an unreasonable determination of the facts, for

two reasons. First, Petitioner has offered no evidence that his counsel knew that the state

intended to play the phone calls at sentencing, so counsel could not have been ineffective for

failing to tell Petitioner about this before Petitioner entered his plea. Second, even if counsel

did have this knowledge, Petitioner has failed to show that had counsel advised him of this

fact, the result of his case would have been different; particularly considering the Petitioner

knew the calls were being recorded. R&R at 4-6.

Petitioner objects arguing that this Court cannot know what his counsel knew and

when he knew it because the state court did not conduct an evidentiary hearing. Objections

at 3. Thus, Petitioner argues that the state court’s decision was unreasonable. This Court

agrees with the state court’s decision that Petitioner has not presented a colorable claim

justifying an evidentiary hearing because Petitioner has not shown that his advance

knowledge of the potential for the playing of the tapes at sentencing would have changed

Petitioner’s decision to enter into a plea or the ultimate sentence. See R&R at 5 (quoting the

state court’s decision). Thus, Petitioner cannot show prejudice under Strickland and relief

on this claim will be denied.

B. Claim 2

Petitioner next claims that his counsel was ineffective for failing to explain certain

legal language in the plea agreement to him. In the R&R, the Magistrate Judge concludes

Case 2:08-cv-00319-JAT Document 17 Filed 04/07/09 Page 3 of 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

- 4 -

that the state court’s decision to deny relief was not contrary to, nor an unreasonable

application of federal law, nor an unreasonable determination of the facts. Specifically,

Petitioner’s argument that he did not understand he was waiving jury fact-finding of

aggravators is belied by the fact that in his plea colloquy he said he understood and was

choosing to waive jury fact-finding. R&R at 6-7 (quoting state court decision).

In his Objections, Petitioner argues that the judge’s explanation in the colloquy was

inadequate because he used the same words to describe the issue as his attorney used, and

the same language as the plea agreement. Objections at 5. The Court said,

Finally, do you understand by entering into these pleas, you’re giving up your

right to a jury trial; instead, consenting to judicial fact finding for any

aggravated circumstances that the Court would find and the full range of

sentences allowed by law.

R&R at 6-7 (emphasis added). Petitioner responded, “Yes, Your Honor.” Id. at 7. 

Petitioner’s contention that he did not understand is absolutely contradicted by the

record. Accordingly, the Court finds neither deficient performance nor prejudice on the

ineffective assistance of counsel claim, and accepts the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation

that the state court’s decision in this regard was neither contrary to nor an unreasonable

application of federal law, nor an unreasonable determination of the facts. Further, as to

Petitioner’s request for an evidentiary hearing in federal court, no evidentiary hearing is

necessary when the Court “is able to determine without a hearing that the allegations are

without credibility ... .” United States v. Navarro-Garcia, 926 F.2d 818, 822 (9th Cir. 1991).

The Court finds Petitioner’s arguments are not credible and will not hold an evidentiary

hearing. Relief on this claim will be denied.

C. Claim 3

Similar to claim 2, the Magistrate Judge found that the state court’s decision on claim

3 was not contrary to nor an unreasonable application of federal law, nor an unreasonable

determination of the facts because Petitioner’s argument is inconsistent with his own

statements during his plea colloquy. Specifically, Petitioner now claims that his counsel

Case 2:08-cv-00319-JAT Document 17 Filed 04/07/09 Page 4 of 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

2

 The state court judge sentenced Petitioner to a term that was at the mid-range of the plea

agreement. R&R at 8.

- 5 -

induced him to enter a plea by telling him he would receive a sentence at the low end of the

range available in the plea agreement. R&R at 7-8.2

However, as the R&R quotes from the state court record, the state court judge asked

Petitioner when he entered his plea if there were any promises or agreements not in the plea

agreement, and Petitioner stated that there were none. R&R at 8. Therefore, this Court finds

that Petitioner’s claim is not credible because it is inconsistent with his own statements on

the record. Accordingly, the Court finds that counsel was not ineffective and no evidentiary

hearing in federal court is necessary. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687-90 and NavarroGarcia, 926 F.2d at 822. Thus, relief on this claim will also be denied.

IV. Conclusion

Based on the foregoing,

IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. #12) is accepted and

adopted; the Objections (Doc. #15) are overruled; the Petition is denied with prejudice and

the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly.

DATED this 7th day of April, 2009.

Case 2:08-cv-00319-JAT Document 17 Filed 04/07/09 Page 5 of 5