Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_08-cv-00526/USCOURTS-azd-4_08-cv-00526-1/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

Aminadab Orduno, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Dora B. Schriro, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 08-526-TUC-FRZ

ORDER

Before the Court for consideration is the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate

Judge Jacqueline M. Rateau, recommending that the Court dismiss the Amended Petition for

Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, filed by Petitioner Aminadab Orduno.

Petition, who is represented by counsel.

Petitioner is currently serving a 27 year sentence in the custody of the Arizona

Department of Corrections. Following a jury trial, Petitioner was found guilty of three

counts of kidnapping, three counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, kidnapping

a minor under 15 years of age, and first-degree burglary. The state trial court sentenced

Petitioner to a presumptive prison term of 17 years for kidnapping a minor, to be followed

by concurrent presumptive terms on the other charges, the longest being 10.5 years, for a

total sentence term of 27 years. 

The Amended Petition raises five grounds for relief. Ground One asserts that

Petitioner’s trial counsel was ineffective because he failed to secure the beneficial plea offer,

failed to meet with Petitioner regularly before trial, failed to obtain a psychological

Case 4:08-cv-00526-FRZ Document 26 Filed 09/10/13 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 -

examination and present mitigation evidence, and failed to finalize an agreement with the

state whereby Petitioner’s sentence would be reduced in return for his cooperation in the

prosecution of his co-defendant. In Ground Two, Petitioner argues that the trial court’s

rejection of the plea agreement violated his right to due process. Ground Three asserts that

the “improper procedures surrounding plea negotiations . . . created sentences that were

impermissibly disparate between” Petitioner and the co-defendant. Ground Four alleges that

Petitioner’s rights under the Fifth Amendment were violated because Arizona law

impermissibly places the burden of proof on a defendant to prove duress. In Ground Five,

Petitioner argues that the reasonable doubt instruction given in his case unconstitutionally

diminished the state’s burden of proof.

This matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Rateau pursuant to the provisions of 28

U.S.C. § 636(b), Rule 72, Fed.R.Civ.P., and Local Rules 72.1 and 72.2 of the Rules of

Practice of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, for further

proceedings and report and recommendation.

Magistrate Judge Rateau issued her Report and Recommendation on January 14,

2013, recommending that the Court, after its independent review of the record, enter an

order denying the five separate claims raised and dismiss the Amended Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus. Magistrate Judge Rateau specifically found that Grounds Two and Three

were not properly exhausted in the state courts and are now procedurally barred.

Notwithstanding the finding that Ground Four was not properly exhausted, the Report and

Recommendation addresses and recommends the dismissal of Ground Four, as well as

Grounds One and Five, on the merits. 

The Report and Recommendation sets forth a detailed factual and procedural history

of the underlying state court criminal and post-conviction proceedings and a thorough

procedural and legal analysis addressing Petitioner’s claims for relief.

The parties were advised that they may serve and file written objections pursuant to

Rule 72(B)(2), within fourteen days of being served with a copy of the Report and

Recommendation, and that if objections were not timely filed, they may be deemed waived.

Case 4:08-cv-00526-FRZ Document 26 Filed 09/10/13 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 -

Following the requests for and approval of extensions, counsel for Petitioner filed

Objections to Magistrate Report and Recommendation on August 1, 2013, requesting that

the Court reject the recommendation that the Amended Petition be denied, arguing that the

Magistrate Judge abused her discretion based on her findings as to Grounds One through

Four. There is no objection to the Report and Recommendation on Ground Five. 

After consideration of the matters presented, and an independent review of the record

herein, the Court finds that the Report and Recommendation shall be adopted, thereby

denying habeas relief and dismissing the Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus as

recommended. Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 18) is hereby

ACCEPTED and ADOPTED as the findings of fact and conclusions of law by this Court;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 3) is hereby DENIED and this action is DISMISSED;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Judgment be entered accordingly.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, if Petitioner appeals the denial of his petition for

habeas relief, any request for certificate of appealability shall be denied based on the Court’s

determination of the claims presented, and based on the Court’s finding that Petitioner has

failed to make the requisite substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right on the

grounds presented. See 28. U.S.C. § 2253(c). 

DATED this 10th day of September, 2013.

Case 4:08-cv-00526-FRZ Document 26 Filed 09/10/13 Page 3 of 3