Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00728/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00728-1/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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Orlando Cain Febles, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

P. Rider, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV07-0728-PHX-SRB

ORDER

Petitioner was charged in state court in November 1996 with six criminal counts

arising out of incidents that took place on two separate occasions in June and September,

1995 when Petitioner participated in two separate burglaries and assaults. The June and

September incidents were severed for trial. On August 1, 2000, a jury found Petitioner guilty

of burglary and aggravated assault arising out of the September 1995 incident. Thereafter,

Petitioner plead guilty to one count of aggravated assault arising from the June 1995 incident.

As part of his plea agreement, the other three counts arising from the June 1995 incident were

dismissed. On January 26, 2001, Petitioner was sentenced to 15 years for the September

1995 burglary and 21 years for the September 1995 aggravated assault to run concurrently

and to 10 years for aggravated assault arising out of the June 1995 incident to run

consecutively to the other two sentences. After pursuing an appeal and a Petition for PostConviction Relief in state court Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in this

Case 2:07-cv-00728-SRB Document 22 Filed 06/30/08 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

- 2 -

Court on May 31, 2006, raising claims related to his guilty plea to aggravated assault arising

from the June 1995 incident and the sentence he received as a result of that guilty plea. On

March 31, 2008, this Court ordered that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be denied and

dismissed with prejudice finding that two of Petitioner’s claims were procedurally defaulted

and denying the third claim. See, Docket 24, Febles v. Rider, CV 06-1414-PHX-SRB.

On April 9, 2007, Petitioner filed a second Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

addressing his conviction and sentence arising from the September 1995 incident. At the

time the Court issued its screening order and directed Respondents to answer, the Court did

not realize that Petitioner had a pending petition arising out of the same state court matter.

Respondents opposed the habeas petition arguing that it was second or successive because

it challenged the same judgment and sentence that was the subject of Petitioner’s first habeas

petition. Petitioner argued that because his first habeas petition addressed only one count of

his conviction which involved his guilty plea to aggravated assault for the incident in June

1995 that he could bring a second habeas petition addressing only his convictions for

burglary and aggravated assault from the September 1995 incident.

On June 10, 2008, the Magistrate Judge issued his Report and Recommendation

recommending that this petition be dismissed because it is a second or successive petition

within the meaning of the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), 28

U.S.C. §2244, and Petitioner failed to comply with the requirement that he seek Court of

Appeals permission to file his second petition. See, 28 U.S.C. §2244(b)(4). Alternatively,

the Magistrate Judge recommended that Petitioner’s claims be denied on the merits should

the Court determine that the petition is not second or successive.

On May 12, 2008, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its decision in Woods v.

Carey, No. 05-55302, in which it held that the district court should have construed a second

habeas petition filed while a first habeas petition was pending as a motion to amend the first

habeas petition. The mandate in Woods v. Carey issued on June 4, 2008. The Court will

analyze this case on its merits and as if the second habeas petition constitutes an amendment

Case 2:07-cv-00728-SRB Document 22 Filed 06/30/08 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 -

to Petitioner’s first habeas petition. The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that

Petitioner’s second habeas petition must be denied on the merits.

Petitioner filed objections to the Report and Recommendation arguing that his petition

not be dismissed as second or successive because his attorney advised him to file two

separate habeas petitions and he followed his attorney’s instructions. If this Court lacks the

authority to consider this petition because it is second or successive, the fact that Petitioner’s

lawyer erroneously advised him to file two separate petitions could not vest this Court with

jurisdiction. Petitioner also objects to the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that his speedy trial

rights were not violated. Petitioner asks that the Court consider a fax from his trial

investigator purportedly showing that a Glendale, Arizona police detective was aware that

Petitioner was in custody in California in 1995. Petitioner did not object to any of the other

factual or legal conclusions of the Magistrate Judge including his determination that

Petitioner failed to show ineffective assistance of counsel or that his rights were violated in

light of Apprendi v. New Jersey and Blakely v. Washington. Petitioner also did not challenge

the Magistrate Judge’s finding that Petitioner’s claim that the trial judge improperly

aggravated his sentence was not previously raised in state court and is therefore procedurally

defaulted.

After a de novo review of the record, the Court agrees with the Report and

Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge that while this petition was filed within the

AEDPA’s statute of limitations, four of Petitioner’s claims are without merit and one is

procedurally defaulted. 

The petition raised two claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. Petitioner argued

that his counsel spent too much time contesting their fees and generally that his trial counsel

and appellate counsel were ineffective. Petitioner offered no evidence to show how the

discussion of fees impacted counsel’s representation of Petitioner. When this argument was

presented to the trial judge, she found that there was no evidence that any compensation

issues impacted counsel’s representation. Petitioner’s general allegation of ineffective

Case 2:07-cv-00728-SRB Document 22 Filed 06/30/08 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 -

assistance of counsel is supported by no evidence, and the Court agrees with the Magistrate

Judge that there has been no attempt by Petitioner to satisfy the Strickland requirements.

Petitioner argued the identical Apprendi and Blakely issues in this second habeas

petition that were raised and considered in his first habeas petition. For the reasons expressed

in the prior order, the Court again concludes that the application of Apprendi to Petitioner’s

claims was not clearly contrary to federal law. The state court followed the law as interpreted

in the time between Apprendi and Blakely. 

Petitioner’s procedurally defaulted claim is his claim that the trial judge aggravated

his sentence for no apparent reason. There is no evidence that this claim was ever raised in

the state court and, therefore, it cannot be considered here.

The only claim to which objections were made is the claim that Petitioner’s rights to

a speedy trial were denied. As the Magistrate Judge noted, the state trial court held an

evidentiary hearing on this issue and concluded that the State of Arizona did not know of

Petitioner’s incarceration in California until 1998. This factual determination made by the

state court was not based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the

evidence presented in the state court proceedings, and this claim must also be denied. The

mere attachment of a unauthenticated copy of a fax from an investigator to Petitioner’s

counsel cannot overcome the state court’s factual determination after an evidentiary hearing.

Petitioner’s second petition considered on its merits must be denied and dismissed with

prejudice. 

Alternatively, if this is a second or successive petition this Court has no authority to

consider it in the absence of compliance with 28 U.S. C. §2244(b)(3)(A).

IT IS ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge

as the order of this Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED overruling Petitioner’s Objection to the Report and

Recommendation.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is

denied.

Case 2:07-cv-00728-SRB Document 22 Filed 06/30/08 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

- 5 -

Alternatively, 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition is dismissed as second or successive.

DATED this 30th day of June, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-00728-SRB Document 22 Filed 06/30/08 Page 5 of 5