Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-00260/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-00260-1/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Richard Farrall, Jr., 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Dora Schriro, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 04-0260-PHX-EHC (BPV)

ORDER

On February 4, 2004, Petitioner proceeding pro se filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1). The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge

Bernardo P. Velasco who issued a Report and Recommendation (Doc. 15) on November 3,

2004, as Amended (Doc. 18) on December 8, 2004, recommending that the Petition be

dismissed as untimely. On December 29, 2004, the Court adopted in full the Report and

Recommendation and denied the Petition (Doc. 20 - Order). Petitioner appealed (Doc. 22)

and the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded (Doc. 35), holding that

the Petition was timely. On remand, the Court appointed counsel to represent Petitioner

(Docs. 43, 44 & 45). 

The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Velasco (Doc. 60) who held an

evidentiary hearing on September 22-23, 2009 (Doc. 63, 88-89). On February 22, 2010, the

Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (Doc. 102) recommending that the

action be dismissed in its entirety.

Case 2:04-cv-00260-EHC Document 106 Filed 10/26/10 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 -

On March 8, 2010, Petitioner filed Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and

Recommendation (Doc. 103). On March 22, 2010, Respondents filed a Response (Doc. 104)

to Petitioner’s Objections.

 The district court reviews de novo the portions of the Magistrate Judge's Report and

Recommendation to which there is a filed objection. 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, ..., to which

objection is made."); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir.

2003). The district court is not required to review any issue that is not the subject of an

objection. Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219 (D. Ariz. 2003), citing Thomas v.

Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). 

In 1998, in the Superior Court of Maricopa County, Arizona, Petitioner was indicted

on thirteen counts of sexual conduct committed against two minors. On August 26, 1999,

during a settlement conference with the trial court, Petitioner entered into two plea

agreements with the State. Petitioner agreed to plead no contest to one count of sexual

conduct with a minor under the age of 15, and to one count of attempted sexual conduct with

a minor over the age of 15. The plea agreements were accepted by the trial court.

In September 1999, Petitioner sought to withdraw from the plea agreements but was

denied after a hearing. On November 23, 1999, the date of sentencing, Petitioner again

attempted to withdraw from the plea agreements and again was denied. Petitioner was

sentenced to an aggravated term of 25 years on one count and a consecutive term of lifetime

probation on the other count. Petitioner was denied post-conviction relief in the state courts.

On February 4, 2004, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28

U.S.C. § 2254 in the District of Arizona. Petitioner has asserted the following grounds: (1)

defense counsel coerced and intimidated Petitioner into accepting his plea agreements; (2)

Petitioner was denied his constitutional right to representation by a competent lawyer at

every critical stage of the proceeding in violation of the Sixth Amendment; (3) the plea

agreements are illegal and void because of changes to the agreements made after they were

Case 2:04-cv-00260-EHC Document 106 Filed 10/26/10 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 -

signed by Petitioner; and (4) the State suppressed evidence that would have acquitted

Petitioner and thereby violated Petitioner’s constitutional rights. 

Petitioner has raised some eleven grounds in his filed Objections (Doc. 103).

Respondents’ Response (Doc. 104) addresses each objection. Petitioner was not entitled to

have a letter purportedly written by one of the victims five years after Petitioner pleaded no

contest, admitted at the evidentiary hearing. This victim did not testify at the evidentiary

hearing. The Court has reviewed the testimony of the other victim who did testify at the

evidentiary hearing before the Magistrate Judge and finds that she did not “recant” her

allegations. Moreover, during his plea hearing, Petitioner stated in open court that he had not

been threatened or forced regarding his plea. 

The Court has considered Petitioner’s Objections to the Report and Recommendation.

Petitioner’s Objections (Doc. 103) are overruled. 

The Report and Recommendation will be adopted as the Order of the Court.

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s Objections (Doc. 103) are overruled. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the

Magistrate Judge (Doc. 102) is adopted in full as the Order of the Court.

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

dismissed.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a Certificate of Appealability is denied as

Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 

DATED this 25th day of October, 2010.

Case 2:04-cv-00260-EHC Document 106 Filed 10/26/10 Page 3 of 3