Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00769/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00769-1/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

Eric Jermall Bomar, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Dora B. Schriro, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-08-769-PHX-ROS

ORDER

On August 20, 2008, Magistrate Judge Lawrence O. Anderson filed a Report and

Recommendation recommending Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be denied

(Doc. 16). For the reasons below, the report and recommendation will be adopted.

Background

On January 29, 2001 Petitioner pled guilty to first-degree murder in Maricopa County,

Arizona and, on March 2, 2001, a state trial judge sentenced him to life imprisonment

without the possibility of parole. (Resp’t Ex. D). On September 26, 2006, Petitioner filed

a petition for post-conviction relief in Maricopa County Superior Court, pursuant to Arizona.

R. Crim. P. 32, and alleged four grounds for relief: (1) Petitioner’s trial counsel was

ineffective in violation of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution; (2) the

prosecutor in Petitioner’s case committed misconduct in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth

Amendments of the U.S. Constitution; (3) Petitioner’s sentence was cruel and unusual in

Case 2:08-cv-00769-ROS Document 19 Filed 09/11/08 Page 1 of 4
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 -

violation of the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution; and (4) Petitioner’s sentence

was “illegal” under the Supreme Court decisions “Apprendi [and] Blakely.” (Resp’t Ex. H).

On October 17, 2006, the Superior Court dismissed Petitioner’s petition as untimely. (Resp’t

Ex. I). On November 31, 2006, Petitioner filed a petition for review before Division One of

the Arizona Court of Appeals, which denied review. (Resp’t Ex. J, K). 

In his petition for writ of habeas corpus filed with this Court on April 22, 2008,

Petitioner sought relief pursuant to grounds 1-3 listed above. Petitioner also alleged the state

unconstitutionally delayed his trial, the state court convicted him under an unconstitutionally

vague statute, and judicial bias contributed to his conviction, among other charges. The

Arizona Attorney General’s Office filed a response, with exhibits, on July 21, 2008 and, on

August 20, 2008, a Magistrate Judge recommended the dismissal of Petitioner’s habeas

application for untimeliness. On September 4, 2008, Petitioner, filing an objection to the

Magistrate’s report and recommendation, claimed extraordinary circumstances,

misrepresentation on the part of his criminal trial attorney, excused the untimeliness of his

habeas application..

Standard

A “district judge may refer dispositive pretrial motions and petitions for writ of habeas

corpus to a magistrate, who shall conduct appropriate proceedings and recommend

dispositions.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 141 (1985); see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B);

Estate of Connors v. O'Connor, 6 F.3d 656, 658 (9th Cir. 1993). Any party “may serve and

file written objections” to the Magistrate’s report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1). “A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the

report or specified findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” Id. A district

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

made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), an

inmate in state custody cannot file an application for writ of habeas corpus more than one

Case 2:08-cv-00769-ROS Document 19 Filed 09/11/08 Page 2 of 4
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 -

year from “the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review

or the expiration of the time for seeking such review.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A). 

Discussion

After a de novo review of the record, the Court will adopt the Magistrate Judge’s report

and recommendation. Pleading guilty to first degree murder, Petitioner waived his right to

seek a direct appeal and had 90 days (May 31, 2001) to seek post-conviction relief in state

court. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 17.1(e), 32.1, 32.4(a). When Petitioner failed to apply for postconviction relief within 90 days of his plea, the AEDPA statute of limitations started to run

and expired on June 1, 2002. See Summers v. Schriro, 481 F.3d 710, 716-17 (9th Cir. 2007).

Once the AEDPA statute of limitation expired, Petitioner’s subsequently filed petition for

state post-conviction relief, filed almost six years after the limitation had run, neither revived

nor tolled the limitation period. See Jimenez v. Rice, 276 F.3d 478, 482 (9th Cir. 2001). Nor

do Plaintiff’s circumstances suggest that equitable tolling of the limitation was appropriate.

See Raspberry v. Garcia, 448 F.3d 1150, 1154 (9th Cir. 2006) (habeas petitioner’s lack of

legal experience or assistance is not an extraordinary circumstance to justify equitable tolling

of the AEDPA one-year filing requirement); Marsh v. Soares, 223 F.3d 1217, 1220-21 (9th

Cir. 2000) (incarceration and its attendant hardships do not qualify as an extraordinary

circumstance); Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 418-19 (2005) (diligence is lacking and

equitable tolling is inappropriate when an inmate waits for years to assert his state postconviction and federal habeas corpus rights). Although Petitioner attempts to justify his

failure to file a timely habeas petition with his trial counsel’s alleged failure to submit a timely

petition for post-conviction relief in state court, the Court sees no connection between the two

events. 

Accordingly,

Case 2:08-cv-00769-ROS Document 19 Filed 09/11/08 Page 3 of 4
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 -

IT IS ORDERED the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 16) is ADOPTED and the

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) is DENIED and DISMISSED WITH

PREJUDICE. The Clerk of Court shall close this case.

DATED this 11th day of September, 2008.

Case 2:08-cv-00769-ROS Document 19 Filed 09/11/08 Page 4 of 4