Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-00813/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-00813-1/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 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

D. Ryan Jones, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Respondents.

No. CV-13-00813-PHX-SRB

ORDER 

 Petitioner, D. Ryan Jones, filed his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus raising two 

claims; 1) ineffective assistance of counsel; and 2) a due process violation when his 

sentence was enhanced without a factual basis. Petitioner’s claim of ineffective assistance 

of counsel raised two arguments. He argued that counsel were ineffective in failing to 

investigate the alleged likelihood he suffers from Asperger’s Syndrome and in failing to 

investigate his difficult childhood. Petitioner’s claimed due process violation was an 

alleged illegal enhancement of his sentences without a factual basis that his conduct was 

“focused on, directed against, aimed at, or target[ed] a victim under the age of fifteen or 

required under the state’s sentencing statute.” 

 The Magistrate Judge filed her Report and Recommendation recommending that 

the Petition be denied. She found no ineffective assistance regarding the alleged 

likelihood of Asperger’s Syndrome because, even if there were some deficiency in 

counsel’s investigation, Petitioner had not shown prejudice because his assertion of 

Asperger’s Syndrome is speculative and he identified no evidence counsel would have 

Case 2:13-cv-00813-SRB Document 14 Filed 06/27/14 Page 1 of 3
- 2 - 

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 

discovered with further investigation. Therefore, Petitioner failed to show the state 

court’s resolution of this claim was contrary to or based on an unreasonable application 

of federal law or an unreasonable determination of the facts. The Magistrate Judge also 

found counsel were not ineffective for failing to investigate and present evidence of his 

traumatic childhood because Petitioner failed to identify any further mitigation 

information counsel might have uncovered with additional investigation. Therefore, the 

Petitioner failed to show that the state court’s denial of this claim of ineffective assistance 

of counsel was contrary to or based on an unreasonable application of federal law or 

based on unreasonable determination of the facts. 

 On Petitioner’s claim of a due process violation at sentencing, the Magistrate 

Judge found that, even if there was error any error was harmless because the error did not 

have a substantial injurious effect or influence on the sentences because the record 

contained sufficient evidence to support factual findings for the applicability of the 

sentencing enhancement. 

 Finally, the Magistrate Judge recommended denial of a Certificate of 

Appealability because Petitioner made no substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right. 

 Petitioner’s timely Objections to Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation raise 

only two objections. Petitioner argues that the Magistrate Judge erred in concluding that 

the state Court of Appeals had applied to the Strickland standard to Petitioner’s 

ineffective assistance of counsel claims and in finding that he failed to make a substantial 

showing of the denial of a constitutional right allowing a Certificate of Appealability. 

 The Court will overrule the objections because on de novo review of the record the 

Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the state appellate court applied the correct 

standard for ineffective assistance and that Petitioner has failed to make a substantial 

showing of the denial of his constitutional rights. 

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984), requires a petitioner to show 

that counsel’s performance was objectively deficient and that deficient performance 

Case 2:13-cv-00813-SRB Document 14 Filed 06/27/14 Page 2 of 3
- 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 

prejudiced the petitioner. In addressing Petitioner’s claims of ineffective assistance of 

counsel the state Court of Appeals expressed the standard as follows: “Generally, ‘[t]o 

state a colorable claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show both 

that counsel’s performance fell below objectively reasonable standards and that this 

deficiency prejudiced the defendant.’ State v. Bennett, 213 Ariz. 562, ¶21, 146 P.3d 63, 

68 (2006).” (Doc. 9, Resp’t Answer to Pet. for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Ex. L) 

 While the state court cited the Arizona Supreme Court’s decision in State v. 

Bennett for the standard rather than Strickland, this is the Strickland standard as 

recognized by the Arizona Supreme Court in Bennett. 

To state a colorable claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant 

must show both that counsel’s performance fell below objectively reasonable standards and that this deficiency prejudiced the defendant. Strickland, 466 U.S at 687, 104 S.Ct 2052. Failure to satisfy either prong of the Strickland test is fatal to an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. 

Id.; State v. Salazar, 146 Ariz. 540, 541, 707 P.2d 944, 945 (1985). 

State v. Bennett, 213 Ariz. 562 § 21, 146 P.2d 63, 68 (2006). Because the Arizona court 

applied the proper standard, Petitioner’s objection is without merit and he has also failed 

to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 

 IT IS ORDERED overruling Petitioner’s Objections to Magistrate’s Report and 

Recommendation. (Doc. 13) 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation of the 

Magistrate Judge as the Order of this Court. (Doc. 12) 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Petitioner’s Writ of Habeas Corpus. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying a Certificate of Appealability because 

Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 

 Dated this 27th day of June, 2014. 

Case 2:13-cv-00813-SRB Document 14 Filed 06/27/14 Page 3 of 3