Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00933/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00933-0/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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Fredi Flores-Zevada, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Charles Ryan, et al. 

 Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV10-0933-PHX-SRB

ORDER

Petitioner filed his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254

on April 28, 2010 raising three ground for relief:

 1. Petitioner’s rights pursuant to the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments were

violated when the trial court, instead of a jury, found aggravating factors justifying a sentence

in excess of the statutory maximum, because his sentence was based upon false and

unsubstantiated information, and because no notice was given of the aggravating factors

found by the court at sentencing;

2. Petitioner received ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel because

counsel failed to raise in the trial or appellate court the issues noted in Petitioner’s first

ground for relief, his trial attorney failed to request a lesser-included instruction on the

felony-murder charge, and his trial attorney failed to present evidence to prove Petitioner had

no foreknowledge of his co-defendant’s intent to shoot the victim.

3. Petitioner’s rights pursuant to the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments were

violated because Petitioner lacked the knowledge that his co-defendant would shoot the

Case 2:10-cv-00933-SRB Document 35 Filed 03/25/11 Page 1 of 2
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 -

victim and he is therefore actually innocent, the trial court at sentencing relied upon perjured

testimony, and the trial court improperly aggravated his sentence by relying upon uncharged

criminal activity. On June 25, 2010, Respondents filed their Response to Petitioner’s Petition

for Writ of Habeas Corpus. No reply was filed but Petitioner filed several subsequent

pleadings addressing the statute of limitations and procedural default issued raised in the

response to his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. On March 2, 2011, the Magistrate Judge

issued her Report and Recommendation recommending that the petition be denied as

untimely and dismissed with prejudice. 

In her Report and Recommendation the Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they

had 14 days from the date of service of a copy of the Report and Recommendation within

which to file specific written objections with the Court. The time to file such objections has

expired and no objections to the Report and Recommendation have been filed.

The Court finds itself in agreement with the Report and Recommendation of the

Magistrate Judge.

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

as the order of this Court.

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

as untimely and dismissed with prejudice. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying any Certificate of Appealability and leave to

proceed in forma pauperis on appeal because the denial of the Petition is justified by a plain

procedural bar and jurists of reason would not find the procedural bar debatable.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk to enter judgment accordingly.

DATED this 25th day of March, 2011.

Case 2:10-cv-00933-SRB Document 35 Filed 03/25/11 Page 2 of 2