Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-02129/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-02129-0/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Patrick G. Martin, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CIV 11-2129-PHX-ROS (MHB)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

TO THE HONORABLE ROSLYN O. SILVER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:

Petitioner Patrick G. Martin, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison Complex,

Barchey Unit in Buckeye, Arizona, has filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1). On February 21, 2012, Respondents filed an Answer

(Doc. 11), and on March 23, 2012, Petitioner filed a traverse (Doc. 12).

BACKGROUND

On October 7, 1999, in Pinal County, Arizona, Petitioner was indicted on two counts

of first degree murder, class 1 felonies, and one count of second degree burglary, a class 3

felony. (Doc. 11, Exh. A.) Petitioner was accused of unlawfully entering the home of Ralph

Kenneth Dant on September 28, 1999, and beating Mr. Dant to death. (Doc. 11, Exh. A;

Exh. C at 3-4.)

On July 23, 2001, the matter proceeded to sentencing following Petitioner’s waiver

of all pertinent constitutional trial and appellate rights upon his entry of guilty pleas to one

count of second degree murder, a class 1 felony, and one count of second degree burglary,

Case 2:11-cv-02129-ROS Document 13 Filed 04/24/12 Page 1 of 7
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

1

 Rule 32.9(c) of the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure requires that a petition for

review be filed with the appellate court within 30 days of the final decision of the trial court,

and that notice of the petition be filed with the trial court within three days after the petition

is filed.

- 2 -

a class 3 felony. (Doc. 11, Exh. B.) The trial court sentenced Petitioner to a 21-year

aggravated term of imprisonment for the murder conviction with credit for 663 days served,

and a consecutive 4-year aggravated term of imprisonment for the burglary conviction. (Doc.

11, Exh. B.) Petitioner did not file a direct appeal.

On March 29, 2005, Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief pursuant to

Rule 32 of the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure and was appointed counsel. (Doc. 11,

Exhs. C, D.) On January 13, 2006, the trial court denied Petitioner’s request for postconviction relief as untimely, finding that Petitioner filed his petition more than three-and-ahalf years after he was sentenced and that he failed to present a colorable claim upon which

relief could be granted. (Doc. 11, Exh. D.) On March 9, 2006, the trial court received a copy

of a petition for review to the Arizona Court of Appeals, which on April 5, 2006, the trial

court accepted as timely.1

 (Doc. 11, Exhs. E, F.) The appellate court, however, has no

record of the petition for review.

Petitioner filed his habeas petition and memorandum in support thereof on October

28, 2011. (Docs. 1, 4.) Petitioner raises three grounds for relief. In Ground One, he alleges

that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and that his acceptance of a plea agreement

was not knowing and voluntary due to mental illness. In Ground Two, Petitioner alleges that

he received ineffective assistance of counsel and that the court failed to consider mitigating

facts. In Ground Three, Petitioner alleges that he was unconstitutionally sentenced in excess

of the presumptive sentence.

///

///

///

///

Case 2:11-cv-02129-ROS Document 13 Filed 04/24/12 Page 2 of 7
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 -

DISCUSSION

In their Answer, Respondents contend that Petitioner’s habeas petition is untimely

and, as such, must be denied and dismissed.

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”) imposes a

statute of limitations on federal petitions for writ of habeas corpus filed by state prisoners.

See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). The statute provides:

A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to an application for a writ of habeas

corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court. The

limitation period shall run from the latest of –

(A) the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct

review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review;

(B) the date on which the impediment to filing an application created by State

action in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States is removed,

if the applicant was prevented from filing by such State action;

(C) the date on which the constitutional right asserted was initially recognized

by the Supreme Court, if the right has been newly recognized by the Supreme

Court and made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review; or

(D) the date on which the factual predicate of the claim or claims presented

could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence.

An “of-right” petition for post-conviction review under Arizona Rule of Criminal

Procedure 32, which is available to criminal defendants who plead guilty, is a form of “direct

review” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A). See Summers v. Schriro, 481

F.3d 710, 711 (9th Cir. 2007). Therefore, the judgment of conviction becomes final upon the

conclusion of the Rule 32 of-right proceeding, or upon the expiration of the time for seeking

such review. See id.

Additionally, “[t]he time during which a properly filed application for State postconviction or other collateral review with respect to the pertinent judgment or claim is

pending shall not be counted toward” the limitations period. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2); see Lott

v. Mueller, 304 F.3d 918, 921 (9th Cir. 2002). A post-conviction petition is “clearly pending

after it is filed with a state court, but before that court grants or denies the petition.” Chavis

v. Lemarque, 382 F.3d 921, 925 (9th Cir. 2004). A state petition that is not filed, however,

within the state’s required time limit is not “properly filed” and, therefore, the petitioner is

Case 2:11-cv-02129-ROS Document 13 Filed 04/24/12 Page 3 of 7
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

- 4 -

not entitled to statutory tolling. See Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 413 (2005). “When

a postconviction petition is untimely under state law, ‘that [is] the end of the matter’ for

purposes of § 2244(d)(2).” Id. at 414.

In Arizona, post-conviction review is pending once a notice of post-conviction relief

is filed even though the petition is not filed until later. See Isley v. Arizona Department of

Corrections, 383 F.3d 1054, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004). An application for post-conviction relief

is also pending during the intervals between a lower court decision and a review by a higher

court. See Biggs v. Duncan, 339 F.3d 1045, 1048 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Carey v. Saffold,

536 U.S. 214, 223 (2002)). However, the time between a first and second application for

post-conviction relief is not tolled because no application is “pending” during that period.

See id. Moreover, filing a new petition for post-conviction relief does not reinitiate a

limitations period that ended before the new petition was filed. See Ferguson v. Palmateer,

321 F.3d 820, 823 (9th Cir. 2003).

The statute of limitations under the AEDPA is subject to equitable tolling in

appropriate cases. See Holland v. Florida, ––– U.S. –––, –––, 130 S.Ct. 2549, 2560, 177

L.Ed.2d 130 (2010). However, for equitable tolling to apply, a petitioner must show “‘(1)

that he has been pursuing his rights diligently and (2) that some extraordinary circumstances

stood in his way’” and prevented him from filing a timely petition. Id. at 2562 (quoting Pace,

544 U.S. at 418).

Petitioner was sentenced, pursuant to a plea agreement, on July 23, 2001. Petitioner

had 90 days to file an “of-right” petition for post-conviction relief pursuant to the Arizona

Rules of Criminal Procedure. See Ariz.R.Crim.P. 32.4(a). He failed to file a petition within

that time period and, thus, the statute of limitations began to run on October 22, 2001 – one

day after the 90-day period expired. The statute of limitations then expired one year later –

on October 22, 2002.

Petitioner’s filed a petition for post-conviction relief on March 29, 2005 – almost twoand-a-half years after the statute of limitations expired. Because the statute of limitations had

passed by the time Petitioner filed his petition for post-conviction relief, the petition (or any

Case 2:11-cv-02129-ROS Document 13 Filed 04/24/12 Page 4 of 7
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

- 5 -

other post-conviction relief petition filed thereafter) did not toll the limitations period. See

Pace, 544 U.S. at 417 (holding that time limits for filing a state post-conviction petition are

filing conditions which, if not met, preclude a finding that a state petition was properly filed).

An untimely state post-conviction petition does not restart an already expired statute of

limitations. See Jiminez v. Rice, 276 F.3d 478, 482 (9th Cir. 2001). Petitioner filed the

instant habeas petition on October 28, 2011 – over nine years after the limitations period

expired. The habeas petition is therefore untimely.

The Ninth Circuit recognizes that the AEDPA’s limitations period may be equitably

tolled because it is a statute of limitations, not a jurisdictional bar. See Calderon v. United

States Dist. Ct. (Beeler), 128 F.3d 1283, 1288 (9th Cir. 1997), overruled in part on other

grounds by Calderon v. United States Dist. Ct. (Kelly), 163 F.3d 530, 540 (9th Cir. 1998).

Tolling is appropriate when “‘extraordinary circumstances’ beyond a [petitioner’s] control

make it impossible to file a petition on time.” Id.; see Miranda v. Castro, 292 F.3d 1063,

1066 (9th Cir. 2002) (stating that “the threshold necessary to trigger equitable tolling [under

AEDPA] is very high, lest the exceptions swallow the rule”) (citations omitted). “When

external forces, rather than a petitioner’s lack of diligence, account for the failure to file a

timely claim, equitable tolling of the statute of limitations may be appropriate.” Miles v.

Prunty, 187 F.3d 1104, 1107 (9th Cir. 1999). A petitioner seeking equitable tolling must

establish two elements: “(1) that he has been pursuing his rights diligently, and (2) that some

extraordinary circumstance stood in his way.” Pace, 544 U.S. at 418. Petitioner must also

establish a “causal connection” between the extraordinary circumstance and his failure to file

a timely petition. See Bryant v. Arizona Attorney General, 499 F.3d 1056, 1060 (9th Cir.

2007).

Here, Petitioner has not proffered any extraordinary circumstance that would justify

equitable tolling. Although Petitioner alludes to mental health issues and being “heavily

medicated” as reasons for filing an untimely habeas petition, he fails to support said reasons

with affidavits or supporting medical records explaining exactly how these alleged issues

prevented him from filing a timely petition or even contributed to the nine-year delay. And,

Case 2:11-cv-02129-ROS Document 13 Filed 04/24/12 Page 5 of 7
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

- 6 -

a petitioner’s pro se status, ignorance of the law, and lack of representation during the

applicable filing period do not constitute extraordinary circumstances justifying equitable

tolling. See, e.g., Rasberry v. Garcia, 448 F.3d 1150, 1154 (9th Cir. 2006) (“[A] pro se

petitioner’s lack of legal sophistication is not, by itself, an extraordinary circumstance

warranting equitable tolling.”). Accordingly, Petitioner is not entitled to equitable tolling and

his habeas petition is untimely.

CONCLUSION

Having determined that Petitioner’s habeas petition is untimely, the Court will

recommend that Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) be denied and

dismissed with prejudice.

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1) be DENIED and DISMISSED WITH

PREJUDICE;

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that a Certificate of Appealability and leave

to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal be DENIED because the dismissal of the Petition is

justified by a plain procedural bar and jurists of reason would not find the procedural ruling

debatable.

This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth

Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of

Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the district court’s judgment. The

parties shall have fourteen days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation

within which to file specific written objections with the Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1);

Rules 72, 6(a), 6(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Thereafter, the parties have fourteen

days within which to file a response to the objections. Failure timely to file objections to the

Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation may result in the acceptance of the Report

and Recommendation by the district court without further review. See United States v.

Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Failure timely to file objections to any

factual determinations of the Magistrate Judge will be considered a waiver of a party’s right

Case 2:11-cv-02129-ROS Document 13 Filed 04/24/12 Page 6 of 7
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

- 7 -

to appellate review of the findings of fact in an order or judgment entered pursuant to the

Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. See Rule 72, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

DATED this 24th day of April, 2012.

Case 2:11-cv-02129-ROS Document 13 Filed 04/24/12 Page 7 of 7