Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02904/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02904-0/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Carlos R. Rivera, 

Petitioner,

vs.

Warden G. Fizer, et al., 

Respondents.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-06-2904-PHX-PGR (JI)

 

 ORDER

Having reviewed de novo the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate

Judge Irwin (doc. #12) in light of the petitioner’s objections thereto set forth in his

Response to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (doc. #13), the Court finds that

the Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that the petition should be dismissed,

and that the petitioner’s arguments to the contrary are meritless as a matter of

law.

The petitioner, relying on Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004),

alleges in his first ground for relief that his sentence was imposed in violation of

the Sixth Amendment because the factors used to aggravate his sentence were 

determined by the sentencing judge and not a jury. In determining that this

properly exhausted claim should be denied on its merits, the Court need not

decide whether the petitioner’s conviction became final before Blakely, as the

Case 2:06-cv-02904-PGR Document 14 Filed 10/12/07 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

1

 The Court rejects the petitioner’s conclusory argument that his lack of

access to legal reference materials or to legal assistance while incarcerated

constitutes cause for his failure to properly raise this federal habeas claim in the

state court. See Hughes v. Idaho State Bd. of Corrections, 800 F.2d 905, 909 (9th

Cir. 1986) (Court held that an illiterate prisoner’s lack of legal assistance in prison

does not constitute cause for a procedural default.)

- 2 -

respondents argue based on the date of the petitioner’s sentencing after his plea

agreement, or after Blakely, as determined by the Magistrate Judge, and the

Arizona Court of Appeals, based on the date of the completion of the petitioner’s

“of-right” petition for post-conviction relief. Assuming, without deciding, that

Blakely is applicable to this action, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge

that the decision of the Arizona Court of Appeals that Blakely did not prevent the

imposition of aggravating sentences in this action was neither contrary to, nor an

unreasonable application of, clearly established Supreme Court precedent. This

is so because this action falls within a recognized exception to Blakely given that

the record establishes that the petitioner admitted to the facts that the sentencing

judge used to aggravate his sentence, i.e. that he shot multiple victims.

The petitioner alleges in his second ground for relief that his trial counsel

was ineffective for failing to object to the sentencing error caused by the

sentencing judge’s determination of the aggravating factors used to enhance his

sentence. The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that this claim must be

dismissed because the petitioner did not properly exhaust it before the Arizona

Court of Appeals, has not shown cause for, nor prejudice arising from, his

procedural default, and does not assert that he is factually innocent of the

charges for which he was convicted.1

 Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation

Case 2:06-cv-02904-PGR Document 14 Filed 10/12/07 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

- 3 -

(doc. #12) is accepted and adopted by the Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus by a Person in State Custody Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is denied and

that this action is dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk of the Court shall enter

judgment accordingly.

DATED this 12th day of October, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-02904-PGR Document 14 Filed 10/12/07 Page 3 of 3