Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00250/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00250-1/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

Qurian Vere Roberson, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-12-00250-PHX-ROS

ORDER

On March 11, 2014, Magistrate Judge David K. Duncan issued a Report and

Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending Qurian Vere Roberson’s petition for writ of

habeas corpus be denied. (Doc. 20). Petitioner filed objections. (Doc. 21). For the

following reasons, the R&R will be adopted and the petition denied.

I. Standard of Review and Objections

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

recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). Where any party has

filed timely objections to the R&R, the district court’s review of the part objected to must be

de novo. Id. The Court need not conduct any review of portions where no objection is made.

See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (district court must

review only those portions of R&R to which there are objections). 

Petitioner “concedes to the correctness of the factual background, and post conviction

proceedings as they are stated” in the R&R. (Doc. 21 at 1). Therefore, the Court will adopt

Case 2:12-cv-00250-ROS Document 22 Filed 05/27/14 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 -

that factual background in full. Petitioner appears to object, however, to everything in the

R&R other than the factual background. Those objections are difficult to understand and

appear to be general objections rather than “specific” objections required by Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 72. As noted by another judge, “general objections to an R & R are

tantamount to no objection at all.” Gutierrez v. Flannican, 2006 WL 2816599, at *2 (D.

Ariz. Sept. 29, 2006). Thus, the Court could summarily adopt the R&R in full. However,

out of an abundance of caution, the Court will review de novo the R&R’s conclusion on each

of Petitioner’s claims.

II. Five of Petitioner’s Claims Are Barred 

The R&R concludes five of Petitioner’s claims are either “procedurally defaulted,

noncognizable, or moot.” (Doc. 20 at 9-10). Having reviewed the claims de novo, the R&R

is correct. That is, the R&R correctly reached the following five conclusions: 1) Petitioner

did not identify the federal basis for portions of one claim based on his counsel allegedly

admitting his guilt; 2) there is no constitutional right to severance of charges; 3) Petitioner

already obtained relief on his sentencing error claim; 4) errors of state sentencing law are not

cognizable in federal habeas; and 5) Petitioner did not raise his claim regarding the

composition of the jury as a separate “substantive claim” during state proceedings. (Doc. 20

at 9-10). Therefore, the R&R will be adopted regarding these five claims.

III. Petitioner’s Remaining Claims Fail on the Merits

The R&R addresses the merits of five claims. Having reviewed those claims de novo,

the R&R correctly rejects all five. In brief: 1) Petitioner has not shown the state court’s

decision on his ineffective assistance of counsel claim based on counsel’s statement

regarding guilt was “objectively unreasonable.” See Woodford v. Visciotti, 537 U.S. 19, 27

(2002); 2) Petitioner has not established any meaningful failure to turn over exculpatory

evidence because the evidence was available at the time of trial; 3) Petitioner has not

established any claim based on juror misconduct; 4) Petitioner was not denied effective

assistance of appellate counsel because the alleged sentencing error was corrected; and 5)

Petitioner’s ineffective assistance of counsel argument based on the firearm being inoperable

Case 2:12-cv-00250-ROS Document 22 Filed 05/27/14 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 -

was properly rejected because Arizona law does not require the weapon be operable.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 20) is ADOPTED and the

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED a Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed in

forma pauperis on appeal are DENIED. Dismissal of certain portions of the petition is

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

On the remaining portions of the petition, Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of

the denial of a constitutional right.

DATED this 27th day of May, 2014.

Case 2:12-cv-00250-ROS Document 22 Filed 05/27/14 Page 3 of 3