Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02594/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02594-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Ptn for Writ of H/C - Stay of Execution

---

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

Fernando Cordova, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

M. Hennessy, et al., 

Respondents.. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-2594-PHX-ROS

ORDER

Petitioner, Fernando Cordova ("Cordova"), filed a pro se Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on August 26, 2005. (Doc. # 1). On August

9, 2006, Magistrate Judge Voss issued a Report and Recommendation (R & R) that the

Petition be denied and dismissed with prejudice. (Doc. # 12). Cordova filed objections to

the R & R on August 31, 2006. (Doc. # 14). For the reasons set forth below, the Court

will adopt the R & R and deny Cordova's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. 

I. Standard of Review of Report and Recommendation

After a Magistrate judge submits a R & R, the parties have ten days in which to

file any objections. 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1). The Court is required to "make a de novo

determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or

recommendations to which objection is made." Id. After evaluating the Magistrate

Case 2:05-cv-02594-ROS Document 16 Filed 03/28/07 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 -

Judge's Report and Recommendation, as well as the objections filed by either party, a

district judge "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or

recommendations made by the magistrate judge." Id.

II. Legal Analysis

In his objections to Magistrate Judge Voss' R & R, Cordova does not contend that

his habeas petition was filed within the statute of limitations period. Cordova's case

became final on direct review on June 3, 2002, and the one year statute of limitations

period began to run on that date. See 28 U.S.C. §2244(d)(1)(A); Bowen v. Roe, 188 F.3d

1157, 1158-59 (9th Cir. 1999). That period expired on June 3, 2003. Cordova did not file

his habeas petition until August 26, 2005. Furthermore, the statute of limitations for

Cordova's case was not tolled by properly filed applications for state post-conviction

relief or other collateral review. See 28 U.S.C. §2244(d)(2). The Court adopts the

finding of Magistrate Judge Voss that Cordova's habeas petition was not filed before the

statute of limitations deadline. 

Cordova objects to the R & R because he claims that the holding of Blakely v.

Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004) entitles him to a re-sentencing hearing. The Ninth

Circuit has held that Blakely does not retroactively apply to convictions that were final

before the Blakely decision was announced. Schardt v. Payne, 414 F.3d 1025, 1036-38

(9th Cir. 2005). The holding in Blakely does not apply to Cordova's case because his

conviction was final before the Blakely decision was announced.

Cordova also objects to the R & R because he claims that he should be allowed a

re-sentencing hearing pursuant to Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.1(g). Rule 32.1(g) gives a person

convicted of a criminal offense the right to file a post-conviction relief proceeding if

“[t]here has been a significant change in the law that if determined to apply to defendant's

case would probably overturn the defendant's conviction or sentence.” Ariz. R. Crim. P.

32.1(g) (emphasis added). As discussed above, the Blakely decision does not

retroactively apply to convictions that were final before the decision was announced, and

it does not apply to claims on collateral review. Schardt, 414 F.3d at 1036-38. Cordova’s

Case 2:05-cv-02594-ROS Document 16 Filed 03/28/07 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 -

conviction was final on direct review before the Blakely decision. Because Blakely does

not apply to Cordova’s case, there was no significant change in the law that would entitle

Cordova to collateral review of his conviction under Rule 32.1(g). 

Finally, Cordova argues that state filing deadlines and statutes of limitations do not

apply to his case because he claims that there has been a significant change in law that

affects the process of his sentence. However, there has been no significant change in the

law that applies to the process of Cordova’s sentence because the Blakely decision does

not apply to the process that affected his sentence. See Schardt, 414 F.3d at 1036-38.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Voss's Report & Recommendation (Doc.

# 12) is ADOPTED. Cordova's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254 is DENIED. The Clerk of Court shall dismiss case number CV 05-2594-PHXROS.

DATED this 27th day of March, 2007.

Case 2:05-cv-02594-ROS Document 16 Filed 03/28/07 Page 3 of 3