Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00684/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00684-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Chad J. Vinson, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Dora B. Schriro, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-0684-PHX-PGR (ECV)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

TO THE HONORABLE PAUL G. ROSENBLATT, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:

BACKGROUND

Pending before the court is a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed by Petitioner Chad J. Vinson. Doc. #1. Pursuant to a plea agreement,

Petitioner was convicted and sentenced on April 9, 2001, in the Maricopa County Superior

Court in case number CR2000-093576. Doc. #13, Exh. A, R.O.A. 23. Petitioner pled guilty

on February 5, 2001, to three counts of Aggravated Assault, and one count each of

Shoplifting, Possession of Precursor Chemicals II, and Misconduct Involving Weapons.

Doc. #13, Exh. A, R.O.A. 19. Petitioner was sentenced to 11 years in prison for each of the

aggravated assault counts, 4.5 years for the shoplifting, 9.25 years for possessing precursor

chemicals, and 4.5 years for the weapons offense. Doc. #13, Exh. A, R.O.A. 23. The trial

court ordered the sentences to run concurrently with each other but consecutively to the

sentences imposed in two other cases, CR1998-095291 and CR1999-015649. Id.

Case 2:07-cv-00684-PGR Document 14 Filed 06/26/08 Page 1 of 5
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 -

On June 19, 2001, Petitioner filed a Notice of Post-Conviction relief under Rule 32

of the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. Doc. #13, Exh. A, R.O.A. 25. The trial court

appointed counsel and ordered a petition to be filed. Doc. #13, Exh. A, R.O.A. 27. On

February 5, 2002, Petitioner’s counsel filed a Notice of Completion of Post-Conviction

Review and Request for Extension of Time to Allow Defendant to File Pro Per Petition.

Doc. #13, Exh. A, R.O.A. 36. In the notice, Petitioner’s counsel indicated that she could find

no claims for relief to raise on Petitioner’s behalf. Id. Petitioner never filed a pro per

petition and therefore the trial court dismissed the petition for post-conviction relief in a

Minute Entry filed on March 26, 2002. Doc. #13, Exh. A, R.O.A. 39. Petitioner did not seek

review in the Arizona Court of Appeals or the Arizona Supreme Court.

Petitioner filed a second Notice of Post-Conviction Relief along with a Petition for

Post-Conviction Relief on April 11, 2005. Doc. #13, Exh. A, R.O.A. 40-41. In a Minute

Entry filed on May 9, 2005, the trial court found that the notice and petition were untimely

and concluded that Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004), and United States v.

Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), do not apply retroactively to convictions that were final before

those decisions were issued. Because Petitioner’s convictions were already final, the trial

court dismissed the notice and petition for post-conviction relief. Doc. #13, Exh. A, R.O.A.

43. Petitioner sought review in the Arizona Court of Appeals but the request was denied in

an order filed on March 3, 2005. Doc. #13, Exh. B-2. Petitioner did not seek review in the

Arizona Supreme Court. Doc. #13, Exh. B-3.

On February 5, 2007, Petitioner filed a third Notice of Post-Conviction Relief. Doc.

#13, Exh. B-4. The trial court dismissed the notice in a Minute Entry filed on March 14,

2007. Doc. #13, Exh. B-5. Petitioner then filed a Motion to Reconsider, which the trial court

denied on March 26, 2007. Doc. #13, Exh. B-6, B-7.

On April 2, 2007, Petitioner filed his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in this court.

Doc. #1. Petitioner alleges the following in his only ground for relief:

My sentences were aggravated in violation of Apprendi. At the time I

was sentenced Apprendi was the law. My sentence could not be enhanced

without a jury - finding aggravators - except priors.

Case 2:07-cv-00684-PGR Document 14 Filed 06/26/08 Page 2 of 5
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 -

On November 5, 2007, Respondents filed an Answer to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.

Doc. #13. Despite being informed of the opportunity to file a reply, Petitioner did not file

one.

DISCUSSION

Respondents contend that the petition should be dismissed because it was not filed

within the statute of limitations period. Having failed to file a reply, Petitioner does not

refute the statute of limitations argument. Because the information presented establishes that

the habeas petition is untimely, the court finds that it is barred by the statute of limitations

and recommends that the petition be denied on that basis.

A. Legal Standard

 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). Summers v. Schriro, 481 F.3d

Case 2:07-cv-00684-PGR Document 14 Filed 06/26/08 Page 3 of 5
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 -

710, 711 (9th Cir. 2007). Therefore, "AEDPA's one-year statute of limitations does not begin

to run until the conclusion of the Rule 32 of-right proceeding, or until the expiration of the

time for seeking such proceeding or review." 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 also

Lott v. Mueller, 304 F.3d 918, 921 (9th Cir. 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. Biggs v. Duncan, 339 F.3d 1045, 1048 (9th Cir. 2003). Moreover, filing

a petition for post-conviction relief does not reinitiate a limitations period that ended before

the petition was filed. See Ferguson v. Palmateer, 321 F.3d 820, 823 (9th Cir. 2003).

B. Application

Petitioner was convicted and sentenced on April 9, 2001. By pleading guilty,

Petitioner waived his right to a direct appeal. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 17.1(e). Petitioner had

90 days to file an "of-right" petition for post-conviction relief under Rule 32 of the Arizona

Rules of Criminal Procedure. He filed a timely notice of post-conviction relief on June 19,

2001. The trial court dismissed the notice on March 26, 2002. Petitioner then had 30 days

to file a petition for review in the Arizona Court of Appeals. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.9(c).

Petitioner did not file a petition for review and therefore the statute of limitations began to

run on the day after the time for seeking review expired. The time to seek review expired

on April 25, 2002, and the statute of limitations began to run the next day. The statute of

limitations expired one year later on April 26, 2003.

By the time Petitioner filed his second notice of post-conviction relief in April 2005,

the AEDPA statute of limitations had already expired. The time between the first and second

petitions did not toll the limitations period. Nor did the filing of the second petition have any

effect on the expired limitations period. Therefore, Petitioner’s federal habeas petition, filed

on April 2, 2007, was nearly four years too late.

Case 2:07-cv-00684-PGR Document 14 Filed 06/26/08 Page 4 of 5
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 -

For these reasons, the court finds that Petitioner's habeas petition is untimely under

28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A). The court will therefore recommend that the petition be denied

and dismissed. 

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED:

 That the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. #1)

be DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE;

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 ten 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); Fed. R.

Civ. P. 6(a), 6(b) and 72. Thereafter, the parties have ten days within which to file a

response to the objections. Failure to timely 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 to timely file objections to any factual determinations of the

Magistrate Judge will be considered a waiver of a party's right to appellate review of the

findings of fact in an order of judgement entered pursuant to the Magistrate Judge's

recommendation. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. 

DATED this 26th day of June, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-00684-PGR Document 14 Filed 06/26/08 Page 5 of 5