Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-02209/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-02209-1/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

Matthew Alan Clack, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Ronald Credio; Attorney General of the

State of Arizona, 

Respondents.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-12-02209-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254 (doc. 1), respondents’ response (doc. 13), petitioner’s reply (doc. 14), the

Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge recommending that the

petition be denied (doc. 18), and petitioner’s objections (doc. 19). 

On July 13, 2009, petitioner pled guilty to one count of kidnaping a child under 15

with sexual motivation, and one count of attempted molestation of a child under 15.

Petitioner later sought to withdraw from the plea agreement. Following an evidentiary

hearing, the trial court denied petitioner’s motion to withdraw. 

Petitioner now asserts four grounds for habeas relief: (1) his 17-year sentence is

unconstitutional because he “did not admit and the state did not prove beyond a reasonable

doubt” either that he committed the offense with the use of a deadly weapon or with the

Case 2:12-cv-02209-FJM Document 20 Filed 12/10/13 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 -

knowing or intentional infliction of serious injury; (2) the Arizona sentencing statute, A.R.S.

§ 13-604.01, refers to a maximum penalty, but does not require a mandatory penalty; (3) trial

counsel was incompetent during plea negotiations because he lacked sufficient knowledge

of Arizona’s criminal statutes, which resulted in petitioner waiving his constitutional rights

“under the guise of plea bargain stipulations”; and (4) the trial court imposed sentences that

violated Arizona statutes and resulted in a “violation of separation of powers” and

petitioner’s constitutional rights. 

The Magistrate Judge noted that Grounds 1, 2 and 4 were not raised in petitioner’s

first state post-conviction proceeding, but instead were first raised in his second postconviction proceeding. The state court therefore concluded that these claims are barred by

Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.2(a)(3) for petitioner’s failure to raise them at trial or in his first Rule

32 proceeding. We agree with the Magistrate Judge that this state procedural ruling “is both

independent of the merits of the federal claim and an adequate basis for the court’s decision.”

Harris v. Reed, 489 U.S. 255, 260 (1989); see also Stewart v. Smith, 536 U.S. 856, 860

(2002) (holding that Rule 32.2 is an adequate and independent procedural bar). Therefore,

Grounds 1, 2, and 4 are procedurally barred from federal habeas corpus review. See

Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72, 91 (1977).

The Magistrate Judge also concluded that Ground 3, asserting trial counsel’s

incompetence regarding Arizona’s sentencing statutes, does not identify a federal claim.

Petitioner asserts that counsel was incompetent, but he does not cite the Sixth Amendment

or any other federal claim. A state prisoner is entitled to relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 only

if he is held “in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United

States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); Engle v. Isaac, 456 U.S. 107, 119 (1982). Therefore, because

Ground 3 is not based on a violation of federal law it cannot form the basis for habeas relief.

But even if Ground 3 is construed as presenting a constitutional claim, it would

nevertheless fail because petitioner did not present this particular claim of ineffective

assistance of counsel to the state court and therefore the claim is also technically exhausted

and procedurally barred. 

Case 2:12-cv-02209-FJM Document 20 Filed 12/10/13 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 -

Finally, we also agree with the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that petitioner has failed

to establish “cause” or that a failure to consider the procedurally barred claims will result in

a “fundamental miscarriage of justice.” 

Therefore, pursuant to Rule 8(b), Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, we have considered

petitioner’s objections and reviewed the report and recommendation de novo. We accept the

recommended decision of the United States Magistrate Judge (doc. 18). Therefore, IT IS

ORDERED DENYING AND DISMISSING with prejudice the petition for writ of habeas

corpus (doc. 1). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING a certificate of appealability and leave

to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal because dismissal of the habeas petition is justified

on procedural grounds and jurists of reason would not find the procedural ruling debatable.

DATED this 9th day of December, 2013.

Case 2:12-cv-02209-FJM Document 20 Filed 12/10/13 Page 3 of 3