Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_15-cv-08024/USCOURTS-azd-3_15-cv-08024-0/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 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Sergio F. Gonzalez-Barrera,

Petitioner, 

v. 

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Respondents.

No. CV-15-08024-PCT-JJT

ORDER 

 At issue is Petitioner Sergio F. Gonzalez-Barrera’s Petition under 28 U.S.C. §2254 

for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1). United States Magistrate Judge James F. Metcalf 

issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) in the matter recommending denial and 

dismissal of the Petition (Doc. 8). The time to object passed over five months ago and no 

party has objected, timely or otherwise. The Court thus may accept the R&R without 

further review. United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). The 

Court nonetheless has conducted its own review of the Petition, and for the reasons set 

forth in the R&R, it will deny and dismiss the Petition. 

 In the R&R, Judge Metcalf thoroughly analyzed the issues involved in the instant 

Petition, and because this Court will adopt the recommendations set forth in the R&R, it 

will not restate those issues or their resolution here in detail. The R&R correctly 

concluded that Petitioner failed to raise what he now presents as Ground Two in the 

Petition—a federal due process claim attendant to the state court’s alleged failure to 

weigh mitigating and aggravating factors at sentencing—and thus that claim is 

Case 3:15-cv-08024-JJT Document 20 Filed 09/02/16 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 

unexhausted and now procedurally barred. While Petitioner argues his federal claim was 

obvious, Judge Metcalf correctly notes that “obviousness is not sufficient.” (Doc. 19 at p. 

25.) See Insyxiengmay v. Morgan, 403 F.3d 657, 68 (9th Cir, 2005). 

 Petitioner’s Ground Three—arguing the prosecution violated the plea agreement 

by emphasizing the sentence Petitioner would have received had he not accepted the plea 

agreement and gone to trial—was properly exhausted but, as Judge Metcalf correctly 

found, fails on its merits. The PCR court found that the prosecution had lived up to its 

agreement in recommending, and continuing to recommend, a thirteen year sentence to 

the sentencing judge. The Arizona Court of Appeals, in reviewing the PCR court’s 

findings, endorsed and adopted them on this point. As Judge Metcalf found, Petitioner 

has identified no mistake of fact in those findings, nor has he shown how the decision 

was either contrary to or an unreasonable application of federal law. Ground Three will 

be denied on the merits. 

 Petitioner’s Ground One—wherein he argues his sentence violated the Eighth 

Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment—is also properly denied. 

Judge Metcalf found in the first instance that Petitioner waived this claim in his plea 

agreement. The Court has become aware of a fairly recent case, Lemke v. Ryan, which 

potentially calls into question the validity of the waiver. 719 F.3d 1093 (9th Cir. 2013). 

Nonetheless, Judge Metcalf also analyzed Ground One on the merits and concluded 

correctly that, even absent a waiver, the claim failed. (Doc. 19 at pp. 33-42.) After 

correctly concluding that the applicable standard of review on this issue was de novo, as 

the state court decided the issue not on the merits but upon the application of a procedural 

bar, Judge Metcalf applied a proportionality analysis as required under federal law. The 

Eighth Amendment forbids sentences that are “grossly disproportionate” to the crime. 

Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 1001 (1991). Upon a review of the circumstances of 

the offense gleaned from the record on review, and also set forth in great detail in the 

R&R, the Court agrees with Judge Metcalf that while the sentence in this matter is 

Case 3:15-cv-08024-JJT Document 20 Filed 09/02/16 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 

“substantial, and even arguably disproportionate....it is not grossly disproportionate.” 

(Doc. 19 at p. 40.) Petitioner’s Ground One fails on the merits. 

 IT IS ORDERED adopting Magistrate Judge Metcalf’s R&R (Doc. 19) in its 

entirety and incorporating same into this Order. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1) and dismissing this matter with prejudice. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying a Certificate of Appealability and leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis on appeal in this matter because the dismissal of the instant 

Petition is justified by a plain procedural bar and jurists of reason would not find the 

procedural ruling debatable. 

 Dated this 2nd day of September, 2016. 

Honorable John J. Tuchi 

United States District Judge 

Case 3:15-cv-08024-JJT Document 20 Filed 09/02/16 Page 3 of 3