Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02235/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02235-1/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

James Matthewson, 

Petitioner, 

v.

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 10-02235-PHX-NVW (LOA)

ORDER

and 

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

Pending before the court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of Magistrate

Judge Anderson (Doc. 16) regarding petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1). The R&R recommends that the Petition be denied

and dismissed with prejudice. The Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had

fourteen days to file objections to the R&R (Doc. 16 at 21 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)).

Petitioner filed objections on December 9, 2011 (Doc. 17) and the Court heard oral argument

on January 13, 2012.

The Court has considered the objections and reviewed the R&R de novo. See Fed.

R. Civ. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that the court must make a de novo

determination of those portions of the R&R to which specific objections are made). The

Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s determinations, accepts the recommended decision

within the meaning of Rule 72(b), Fed. R. Civ. P., and overrules Petitioner’s objections.

See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that the district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in

Case 2:10-cv-02235-NVW Document 20 Filed 02/16/12 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 -

whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate”).

At oral argument, the Court inquired about petitioner’s argument that he received

ineffective assistance of counsel because his defense attorney chose not to call an expert

regarding the three blood samples taken from petitioner on the night of the collision. The

thrust of petitioner’s argument is that inconsistencies between the blood alcohol levels found

in those samples as compared to each other and a horizontal gaze nystagmus (HGN) test

administered soon after the accident, if explained by an expert, would have almost certainly

raised a reasonable doubt about petitioner’s level of intoxication at the time of the accident.

The Court agrees that this evidence, if explained appropriately, could raise a reasonable

doubt in the minds of rational jurors.

Petitioner’s defense attorney, in a post-conviction interview, admitted the significance

of the blood sample and HGN evidence and explained that he made a strategic choice to elicit

relevant facts through the state’s witnesses, rather than through his own expert, because he

believes that juries often perceive defense experts as “intellectual prostitutes.” The strategy

is debatable but does not itself amount to ineffective assistance. The Court’s own review of

the attorney’s pre-trial interview with the state’s blood-test expert, his questioning of that

expert at trial, and his closing argument shows that petitioner’s defense attorney indeed

pursued such a strategy, although not very skillfully. Nonetheless, the attorney’s failure to

carry it out with polish does not render his assistance ineffective. The attorney elicited the

relevant facts and made an argument based on them. The argument was before the jury and

the jury did not accept it.

Insofar as the Magistrate Judge also ruled on any non-dispositive matters, error may

not be assigned to any defect in those rulings to the extent that an aggrieved party did not file

a timely objection. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) (“A party may serve and file objections to the order

within 10 days after being served with a copy [of the magistrate’s order]. A party may not

assign as error a defect in the order not timely objected to.”). The absence of a timely

objection precludes later assignment of error in this court or in any higher court of the nonCase 2:10-cv-02235-NVW Document 20 Filed 02/16/12 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 -

dispositive rulings of a magistrate judge. Simpson v. Lear Astronics Corp., 77 F.3d 1170,

1174 (9th Cir. 1996); Philipps v. GMC, 289 F.3d 1117, 1120-21 (9th Cir. 2002). 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the

Magistrate Judge (Doc. 16) is accepted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court enter judgment dismissing

Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1)

with prejudice. The Clerk shall terminate this action.

Having considered the issuance of a Certificate of Appealability from the order

denying Petitioner's Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, the Court FINDS: a Certificate of

Appealability is GRANTED. Reasonable jurists could disagree whether Petitioner’s defense

attorney at trial actually pursued the stated strategy of eliciting evidence regarding the

inconsistencies between his blood tests and HGN test through the state’s witnesses.

Petitioner has made a substantial showing of the denial of the constitutional right to effective

assistance of counsel.

DATED this 16th day of February, 2012.

Case 2:10-cv-02235-NVW Document 20 Filed 02/16/12 Page 3 of 3