Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00278/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00278-0/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

Larry Eugene Varvel, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 11-0278-PHX-FJM (DKD)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

TO THE HONORABLE FREDERICK J. MARTONE, U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE:

Larry Eugene Varvel filed a timely Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254 on February 10, 2011, and an Amended Petition on March 4, challenging his

convictions for sexual conduct with a minor and sexual abuse of a minor, and the imposition

of a five-year prison term to be served consecutively to a life sentence. In Ground One,

Varvel alleges that the victim was coerced and lied. He also contends that his sixth

amendment rights were violated because his attorneys did not impeach the inconsistencies

in another witness’s testimony. In Ground Two, Varvel challenges the sufficiency of the

evidence and the credibility of the witnesses. Respondents allege that the grounds are either

not cognizable on habeas review or unexhausted and procedurally defaulted. For the reasons

stated below, the Court recommends that the petition be denied and dismissed with prejudice.

BACKGROUND

The facts surrounding the convictions are summarized in the court of appeals

memorandum decision:

Case 2:11-cv-00278-FJM Document 14 Filed 09/13/11 Page 1 of 7
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 victim is a child who is developmentally delayed,

and is Defendant’s step-granddaughter. The victim and her

mother, Lisa, who is also developmentally delayed, previously

lived with Defendant and his wife, Nancy, her maternal

grandmother. Defendant and his wife were involved with

overseeing the care of both Lisa and her daughter.

Nancy died on December 1, 2006, after a long illness.

After she passed away, Defendant continued to do things with

his step-granddaughter, including taking her to church and to the

zoo. One night before Christmas in 2006, Lisa and the child

spent the night at Defendant’s house.

A few days later, Defendant called Lisa to ask if he could

take the child to church. Lisa’s son, Sam, who was visiting at

the time, answered the phone and asked the child whether she

wanted to go to church with Defendant. The child looked at

Sam with “fear in her eyes like . . . something had happened,”

and then told him that Defendant had touched her. This was the

first time that Sam had ever seen such a look on the child’s face,

and the first time she had ever expressed a reluctance to go with

Defendant. When he saw the look on her face, Sam told

Defendant he would call him back and hung up.

Sam was confused and upset by his sister’s declaration.

He immediately took her to the home of Lisa’s older sister, his

Aunt Darci, to ask her advice on how to proceed. The child

“provide[d] details” to Darci about what Defendant had done

and why she did not want to go to church with him. The child

was “very fearful, very scared, and very upset.” Darci had never

seen her niece “with the demeanor she had that day.” Darci

instructed Sam to call the police. Phoenix Police Officers

responded and interviewed Sam and Darci separately.

The following day the child was taken to John C. Lincoln

Hospital for an examination. The hospital reported the matter

to the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, and Detective Rodrigo

Rojas contacted the family. After he talked to Sam, the

detective made arrangements to have the child interviewed and

examined at Child Help “because she needed to be interviewed

by a more skilled or specially trained forensic interviewer.”

The child was interviewed on January 3, 2007, by

Michele Becker (“Becker”), an investigative interview specialist

trained in interviewing developmentally delayed children, at the

Phoenix Child Help Children’s Center. Prior to the interview,

Becker reviewed an initial police report, met with Rojas, and

also spoke with Darci and Lisa. She then conducted her

recorded forensic interview of the child.

During the interview, the child told Becker that

Defendant had “touched her” while her grandmother was in

heaven. She explained that the event had occurred at

Case 2:11-cv-00278-FJM Document 14 Filed 09/13/11 Page 2 of 7
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 -

Defendant’s house, while mommy was asleep on the couch. The

child pointed between her legs and stated that he had put lotion

down there, and took off her clothes and “kissed my titties.”

She also said that Defendant touched her “pee pees” and

described Defendant’s hand going into her “pee pees.”

Jacqueline Hess (“Hess”), a family nurse practitioner for

Child Help, conducted a thorough medical examination of the

child. The results of the overall physical and genital

examinations rendered “completely normal” results. Hess was

not surprised because “more than 95 percent” of children that

report sexual abuse have normal examinations. She testified

that there were many reasons for the normal examination,

including, for example, the amount of time between the event

and the examination, the fact that genital tissue heals very

rapidly, or the fact that the type of sexual contact that occurred

might not have created any type of injury.

The detective interviewed Defendant in February 2007,

and he denied any wrongdoing. He was arrested in June 2007,

and charged with sexual conduct with a minor under the age of

fifteen, a Class 2 felony, and dangerous crime against children,

and sexual abuse of a minor under the age of fifteen, a Class 3

felony, and dangerous crime against children.

(Doc. 13, Exh H at 2-5).

On direct review, Varvel argued two errors by the trial court: (1) the denial of his

Rule 20 motion for judgment of acquittal because of insufficient evidence of sexual conduct

with a minor; and (2) the admission of an unredacted report of the victim’s forensic medical

examination (Id., Exh E). On December 22, 2009, the court of appeals affirmed Varvel’s

convictions and sentences. In doing so, the court determined that (1) the State had presented

sufficient evidence of sexual conduct with a minor; (2) the statements contained in the

medical report were properly admitted for the limited purpose of demonstrating what

information the nurse had before examining the victim; and (3) there was no confrontation

clause violation in the admission of the medical report because the statements were not

admitted for the truth of the matter asserted (Id., Exh H).

On January 12, 2010, Varvel filed a Notice of Post-Conviction Relief (Id., Exh I).

Appointed counsel filed a Notice of Post-Conviction Review, indicating to the trial court that

she had reviewed the record and could find no colorable claim for relief (Id., Exh K). The

Case 2:11-cv-00278-FJM Document 14 Filed 09/13/11 Page 3 of 7
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 -

trial court granted Varvel leave to file a pro per petition (Id., Exh L). Varvel filed a letter

dated June 18, 2010 in which he argued the following: (1) trial counsel was ineffective for

failing to ask certain questions of the State’s witnesses; (2) the victim was told what to say

by her brother and sister; and (3) the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions

(Id., Exh M). The trial court determined that the letter did not comply with the filing

procedures outlined in Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.5, and granted Varvel additional time to file a

proper petition. Varvel filed a second letter setting forth similar claims; on September 9,

2010, he filed a post-conviction relief form, attaching his June 18 letter to the form (Id., Exh

O, P). The State argued in its response that the petition should be dismissed because it did

not comply with the rules, it failed to raise any proper claims, cite to the record or any

applicable case law, or allege any facts which would entitle him to relief (Id., Exh Q). The

trial court summarily dismissed the petition (Id., Exh S).

EXHAUSTION OF REMEDIES

A state prisoner must exhaust his state remedies 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, 839-846 (1999). 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 postconviction 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). The exhaustion requirement will not be

met where the Petitioner fails to fairly present his claims. Roettgen, 33 F.3d at 38.

Case 2:11-cv-00278-FJM Document 14 Filed 09/13/11 Page 4 of 7
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 - 5 -

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 available in state court, then 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); White v. Lewis, 874 F.2d 599, 602-605 (9th Cir. 1989). The federal

court may decline to 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 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); Wainwright v. Sykes,

433 U.S. 72, 86 (1977); United States v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152, 167-68 (1982).

Further, a procedural default may occur when a Petitioner raises a claim in state court,

but the state court finds the claim to be defaulted on procedural grounds. Coleman, 501 U.S.

at 730-31. In such cases, federal habeas review is precluded if the state court opinion

contains a plain statement clearly and expressly relying on a procedural ground "that is both

'independent' of the merits of the federal claim and an 'adequate' basis for the court's

decision." See Harris, 489 U.S. at 260. A state procedural default ruling is "independent"

unless application of the bar depends on an antecedent ruling on the merits of the federal

claim. See Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68, 74-75 (1985); Stewart v. Smith, 536 U.S. 856

(2002). A state's application of the bar is "adequate" if it is "'strictly or regularly followed.'"

Johnson v. Mississippi, 486 U.S. 578, 587 (1988) (quoting Hathorn v. Lovorn, 457 U.S. 255,

262-63 (1982)). In cases in which a state prisoner has defaulted his federal claims in state

court pursuant to an independent and adequate state procedural rule, just as in cases

involving defaulted claims that were not fairly presented, federal habeas review of the claims

Case 2:11-cv-00278-FJM Document 14 Filed 09/13/11 Page 5 of 7
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 -

is barred unless the prisoner can demonstrate a miscarriage of justice or cause and actual

prejudice to excuse the default. See Coleman, 501 U.S. at 750-51. 

DISCUSSION

In Ground One, Varvel argues that the victim was coerced into giving her statement

to the investigative specialist, and lied about the incident. He also argues that trial counsel

was ineffective for not pointing out the inconsistencies in the testimony of Lisa, the victim’s

mother. In Ground Two, he argues about the credibility of witnesses’ testimony, essentially

contending that such testimony was insufficient evidence to convict him. Varvel’s

sufficiency of the evidence claim was not raised on direct review as a federal constitutional

claim. Proper exhaustion requires that Varvel have fairly presented to the state courts the

exact federal claim he is raising in his federal habeas petition, and in doing so describe the

facts and federal legal theory upon which the claim is based. Bland, 20 F.3d at 1472.

Because Varvel failed to alert the state court to a federal constitutional claim, his sufficiency

of the evidence claim is unexhausted. O’Sullivan, 526 U.S. at 845. Because a return to state

court would be futile, the claim is procedurally defaulted. Teague, 489 U.S. at 297-99.

His remaining claims that trial counsel was ineffective, and that the victim was

coerced, were raised in his post-conviction petition, which the trial court dismissed for failure

to present a colorable claim for relief. Varvel failed to petition for review in either the

Arizona Court of Appeals or the Arizona Supreme Court. Because of this, these claims were

never properly exhausted, and because these claims cannot be raised in a successive postconviction petition, a return to state court would be futile. Therefore, these claims are also

procedurally defaulted. Finally, Varvel has shown no miscarriage of justice or cause and

actual prejudice to excuse the default. See Coleman, 501 U.S. at 750-51.

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that Larry Eugene Varvel’s Amended

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be denied and dismissed with prejudice (Doc. 6).

Case 2:11-cv-00278-FJM Document 14 Filed 09/13/11 Page 6 of 7
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 -

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that a Certificate of Appealability and leave

to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal be denied because dismissal of the Petition is

justified by a plain procedural bar and jurists of reason would not find the ruling debatable.

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 fourteen 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);

Rules 72, 6(a), 6(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Thereafter, the parties have fourteen

days within which to file a response to the objections. Failure timely to 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, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Failure timely to 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 or judgment entered pursuant to the

Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. See Rule 72, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

DATED this 13th day of September, 2011.

Case 2:11-cv-00278-FJM Document 14 Filed 09/13/11 Page 7 of 7