Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_03-cv-01025/USCOURTS-azd-2_03-cv-01025-0/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

Paul Anthony Miloni, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Dora Schriro, et al.,

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 03-1025-PHX-MHM (MS)

ORDER

Petitioner has filed a pro se Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28

U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his criminal conviction on a plea of guilty on two counts of sexual

conduct with a minor, class 2 felonies and dangerous crimes against children, entered in

Maricopa County Superior Court, State of Arizona. (Doc. 13). Petitioner was sentenced to

a mitigated sentence of 18 years on count one (sexual conduct with a minor) and to a

consecutive term of lifetime probation on count four (attempted sexual conduct with a minor).

The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Morton Sitver who has issued a Report and

Recommendation that recommends that the Amended Petition should be denied and dismissed

with prejudice. (Doc.37). Petitioner has not filed an objection to the Report and

Recommendation. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The district court 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,

Case 2:03-cv-01025-MHM Document 38 Filed 06/13/06 Page 1 of 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 - 2 -

1121 (9th Cir. 2003)(en banc). See 28 U.S.C. § 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"). 

DISCUSSION

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

Petitioner has raised several grounds for relief in his Amended Petition. These grounds are

set forth in the Court's Order of June 14, 2004, and include jurisdictional grounds, a claim of

violation of due process based on improperly obtained evidence, a challenge to the indictment,

ineffective assistance of counsel and alleged prosecutorial misconduct. (Doc. 14). The record

indicates that Petitioner confessed to the crimes involving the victim, his daughter who was

approximately eleven years of age. At his guilty plea hearing, Petitioner stated that he had

begun taking a prescribed anti-depressant medication on the preceding day. Petitioner stated

that the medication did not affect his ability to understand what he had done. Petitioner

indicated that he understood the range of sentencing for the offenses and that he wanted to

plead guilty. Petitioner also withdrew his motion for a change of counsel. The state trial court

accepted Petitioner's guilty plea. 

The Magistrate Judge has recommended that the Amended Petition should be denied

because Petitioner's Petition for Review filed with the Arizona Court of Appeals was untimely

under Rule 32.9(c) of the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure and Petitioner did not present

a valid reason to the Superior Court that would warrant suspending the deadline. Petitioner

has not shown "cause" for the noncompliance and actual prejudice or that failure to review

his claims will result in a "fundamental miscarriage of justice." 

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED adopting the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc.

37) in its entirety as the Order of the Court; 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

is denied and dismissed with prejudice. 

Case 2:03-cv-01025-MHM Document 38 Filed 06/13/06 Page 2 of 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 - 3 -

 DATED this 7th day of June, 2006.

Case 2:03-cv-01025-MHM Document 38 Filed 06/13/06 Page 3 of 3