Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00860/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00860-0/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

John Charles Holmes, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Baca, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-0860-PHX-JAT (ECV)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

TO THE HONORABLE JAMES A. TEILBORG, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:

BACKGROUND

Petitioner John Charles Holmes has filed a pro se Amended Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Doc. #7. Following a jury trial in Maricopa

County Superior Court in October 2004, Petitioner was convicted of one count of Theft of

Means of Transportation, a Class 3 Felony under Arizona law. Doc. #13, Exh. G, H. On

December 17, 2004, Petitioner was sentenced to 7.5 years in prison for the conviction, which

was the minimum sentence allowed given Petitioner’s two prior felony convictions. Doc.

#13, Exh. C at 4-5, Exh. I.

Petitioner appealed, and on April 17, 2006, through counsel, filed an Opening Brief

in the Arizona Court of Appeals. Doc. #13, Exh. J. Petitioner raised three claims in his

direct appeal, challenging the trial court’s failure to give a lesser-included offense instruction,

the trial court’s denial of the motion for judgment of acquittal, and the trial court’s failure to

Case 2:07-cv-00860-JAT Document 14 Filed 06/26/08 Page 1 of 6
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 -

follow through with a special order enabling Petitioner to seek relief from the Board of

Executive Clemency. Id. On November 16, 2006, in a Memorandum Decision, the Court

of Appeals affirmed the conviction and sentence but remanded the case to the trial court to

clarify whether the court intended to issue the special order regarding clemency. Doc. #13,

Exh. L. Petitioner then filed a Petition for Review in the Arizona Supreme Court. Doc. #13,

Exh. M. The Court denied the Petition on April 12, 2007. Doc. #13, Exh. N. The trial court

subsequently issued a Minute Entry on October 17, 2007, finding that a commutation of the

sentence is appropriate. Doc. #13, Exh. O. A review of the Arizona Department of

Corrections website shows that Petitioner is still in custody. However, it appears that

following a hearing in March 2008, commutation was recommended to the Governor, though

no action has been taken. Petitioner did not file a petition for post-conviction relief after his

direct appeal proceedings concluded.

On April 25, 2007, Petitioner filed a habeas petition in this court. Doc. #1. On

September 17, 2007, he filed an amended petition. Doc. #7. Petitioner alleges four grounds

for relief: 1) that the Sixth Amendment right to due process was violated when the trial court

failed to provide a lesser-included offense instruction for unlawful use of means of

transportation; 2) that the Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial was violated when the jury

received no instructions regarding the lesser-included offense of unlawful use of means of

transportation; 3) that the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments were violated when the jury

was not allowed to find the aggravating facts that increased the sentencing range; and 4) that

Petitioner’s sentence was excessive in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Doc. #7. The

court screened the petition and directed Respondents to file an answer. Doc. #8.

Respondents filed an Answer to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus on January 4, 2008.

Doc. #13. Despite being told of the opportunity to submit a reply, Petitioner has not filed

one.

///

///

///

Case 2:07-cv-00860-JAT Document 14 Filed 06/26/08 Page 2 of 6
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 -

DISCUSSION

Respondents contend in their answer that Petitioner has procedurally defaulted on his

four grounds for relief by failing to exhaust his state court remedies. Having failed to file a

reply, Petitioner has not addressed the procedural default issue.

A. Procedural Default Legal Standards

A state prisoner must exhaust his remedies in state court before petitioning for a writ

of habeas corpus in federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1) & (c); Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S.

364, 365-66 (1995); McQueary v. Blodgett, 924 F.2d 829, 833 (9th Cir. 1991). To properly

exhaust state remedies, a petitioner must fairly present his claims to the state's highest court

in a procedurally appropriate manner. O'Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 848 (1999). A

petitioner "must give the state courts one full opportunity to resolve any constitutional issues

by invoking one complete round of the State's established appellate review process." Id. at

845. In Arizona, a petitioner must fairly present his claims to the Arizona Court of Appeals

by properly pursuing them through the state’s direct appeal process or through appropriate

post-conviction relief. Swoopes v. Sublett, 196 F.3d 1008, 1010 (9th Cir. 1999); Roettgen

v. Copeland, 33 F.3d 36, 38 (9th Cir. 1994). 

A claim has been fairly presented if the petitioner has described both the operative

facts and the federal legal theory on which the claim is based. Bland v. Cal. Dep't of

Corrections, 20 F.3d 1469, 1472-73 (9th Cir.1994), overruled on other grounds by Schell v.

Witek, 218 F.3d 1017, 1025 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc); Tamalini v. Stewart, 249 F.3d 895,

898-99 (9th Cir. 2001). "Our rule is that a state prisoner has not 'fairly presented' (and thus

exhausted) his federal claims in state court unless he specifically indicated to that court that

those claims were based on federal law." Lyons v. Crawford, 232 F.3d 666, 668 (9th Cir.

2000), amended on other grounds, 247 F.3d 904 (9th Cir. 2001). "If a petitioner fails to alert

the state court to the fact that he is raising a federal constitutional claim, his federal claim is

unexhausted regardless of its similarity to the issues raised in state court." Johnson v. Zenon,

88 F.3d 828, 830 (9th Cir. 1996).

Case 2:07-cv-00860-JAT Document 14 Filed 06/26/08 Page 3 of 6
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 -

If a petition contains claims that were never fairly presented in state court, the federal

court must determine whether state remedies remain available to the petitioner. See Rose v.

Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 519-20 (1982); Harris v. Reed, 489 U.S. 255, 268-270 (1989)

(O'Connor, J., concurring). If remedies are still available in state court, the federal court may

dismiss the petition without prejudice pending the exhaustion of state remedies. Id.

However, if the court finds that the petitioner would have no state remedy were he to return

to the state court, then his claims are considered procedurally defaulted. Teague v. Lane, 489

U.S. 288, 298-99 (1989); see also Sandgathe v. Maass, 314 F.3d 371, 376 (9th Cir. 2002) (a

defendant's claim is procedurally defaulted when it is clear that the state court would hold

the claim procedurally barred). The federal court will not consider these claims unless the

petitioner can demonstrate that a miscarriage of justice would result, or establish cause for

his noncompliance and actual prejudice. See Dretke v. Haley, 124 S.Ct. 1847, 1851-52

(2004); Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 321 (1995); Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722,

750-51 (1991); Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478, 495-96 (1986).

B. Application

Petitioner’s claims in ground one and two allege federal constitutional violations

resulting from the trial court’s failure to give a lesser-included offense instruction. Although

Petitioner raised a related claim in his direct appeal, he did not raise it as a federal

constitutional claim. In his opening brief on direct appeal, Petitioner argued that the trial

court committed fundamental error under state law when it failed to give a lesser-included

offense instruction for unlawful use of means of transportation. Doc. #13, Exh. J at 7-10.

Petitioner argued the issue strictly as a violation of state law. Id. Nowhere in his argument

does he allege a violation of the Sixth Amendment or any provision of the federal

Constitution. Petitioner also failed to allege a federal constitutional claim in his petition for

review to the Arizona Supreme Court. Doc. #13, Exh. M. Petitioner therefore has failed to

exhaust the claims he now raises in ground one and two. 

With regard to the claims in grounds three and four, Petitioner raised neither claim,

or even a related claim, in the opening brief of his direct appeal. Doc. #13, Exh. J. Nor did

Case 2:07-cv-00860-JAT Document 14 Filed 06/26/08 Page 4 of 6
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

 The time has passed to seek post-conviction relief in state court under Rule 32.4(a)

of the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure and Petitioner has not shown that any of the

exceptions to the time limits under Rule 32.1(d), (e), (f), (g) or (h) apply to him.

- 5 -

he raise the claims in his petition for review to the Arizona Supreme Court. Doc. #13, Exh.

M. Petitioner has therefore failed to exhaust his claims in ground three and four.

By failing to fairly present his claims in grounds one, two, three and four in the state

court, Petitioner has failed to exhaust his state court remedies. Moreover, Petitioner would

no longer have a remedy if he returned to the state court.1

 As a result, his claims are

procedurally defaulted. Having failed to file a reply, Petitioner has not alleged cause for the

default and actual prejudice, nor has he shown a miscarriage of justice to overcome the

procedural default. The court will therefore recommend that these grounds for relief be

denied.

C. Conclusion

Having determined that all four grounds for relief alleged by Petitioner are

procedurally defaulted, the court will recommend that the amended petition be denied and

dismissed with prejudice.

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED:

That the Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254

(Doc. #7) be DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE;

This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth

Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of

Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the district court's judgment. The

parties shall have ten days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within

which to file specific written objections with the Court. See, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R.

Civ. P. 6(a), 6(b) and 72. Thereafter, the parties have ten days within which to file a

response to the objections. Failure to timely file objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report

and Recommendation may result in the acceptance of the Report and Recommendation by

the district court without further review. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114,

Case 2:07-cv-00860-JAT Document 14 Filed 06/26/08 Page 5 of 6
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 -

1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Failure to timely file objections to any factual determinations of the

Magistrate Judge will be considered a waiver of a party's right to appellate review of the

findings of fact in an order of judgement entered pursuant to the Magistrate Judge's

recommendation. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72.

DATED this 26th day of June, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-00860-JAT Document 14 Filed 06/26/08 Page 6 of 6