Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02348/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02348-3/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

Robert Barnes, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Dora Schriro, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-2348-PHX-FJM (ECV)

ORDER

Pending before the court for a Report and Recommendation is Petitioner Robert Lee

Barnes' pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On March

28, 2001, pursuant to a plea agreement, Petitioner pleaded guilty in Maricopa County

Superior Court to one count of Conspiracy to Commit Aggravated Assault and one count of

Assisting a Criminal Street Gang, both class three felonies under Arizona law. Doc. #22,

Exh. B. On February 1, 2002, Petitioner was sentenced to consecutive sentences of 7 years

in prison for the conspiracy count and 3.5 years for the assisting a street gang count. Doc.

#22, Exh. D. One of the claims in the petition is that the consecutive sentences violate the

Double Jeopardy Clause.

In their Answer to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Respondents argue that the

claim is without merit because each of the two offenses contains an element not contained

in the other. Doc. #22 at 9-11. Therefore, under the test established in Blockburger v.

United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932), Respondents argue there is no double jeopardy violation.

Case 2:05-cv-02348-FJM Document 25 Filed 07/19/06 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 -

To support their argument, Respondents contend that Petitioner was convicted of violating

A.R.S. § 13-2308(A) and they compare the elements of that subsection with the elements of

conspiracy to commit aggravated assault. Doc. #22 at 9-11. However, portions of the record

provided by Respondents suggest that Petitioner was convicted of violating A.R.S. § 13-

2308(C) and (F), not 2308(A). For example, the change of plea Minute Entry states that

Petitioner pled guilty to "Assisting a Criminal Street Gang," which is the offense set forth in

§ 13-2308(C) and (F). Doc. #22, Exh. B. The offense in § 13-2308(A) involves

"participating" in a criminal syndicate. Moreover, the change of plea and sentencing Minute

Entries and Petitioner's plea agreement show the offense as a class 3 felony, which is

consistent with a conviction under § 13-2308(C) and (F). A conviction under § 13-2308(A)

on the other hand, is a class 2 felony. A.R.S. § 13-2308(D), (E) and (G). Finally, Petitioner

asserted in his state petition for post-conviction relief that § 13-2308(C) and (F) correspond

to the street gang offense to which he pled guilty. Doc. #22, Exh. F at 13-14. The State of

Arizona did not dispute this assertion in its response to the petition. Doc. #24, Exh. C. 

Respondents have not provided a transcript of the change of plea proceeding or other

source to conclusively indicate the subsection to which Petitioner pled guilty. Because this

issue is relevant to the court's determination of the double jeopardy issue, Respondents are

directed to supplement their answer and provide evidence to the court establishing the gangrelated offense Petitioner was convicted of, including the proper subsection. If Petitioner

was in fact convicted of violating A.R.S. § 13-2308(C) and (F), Respondents are further

directed to analyze whether, applying the elements of § 13-2308(C), the Blockburger test is

satisfied and whether Whalen v. United States, 445 U.S. 684 (1980) is determinative.

///

///

///

///

///

Case 2:05-cv-02348-FJM Document 25 Filed 07/19/06 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 -

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

 That Respondents shall file a supplement to their answer consistent with the court's

directives on or before Monday, July 31, 2006.

DATED this 19th day of July, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-02348-FJM Document 25 Filed 07/19/06 Page 3 of 3