Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_13-cv-08190/USCOURTS-azd-3_13-cv-08190-2/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Johann Hartman, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Charles L Ryan, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 13-8190-PCT-JAT

ORDER

Petitioner has filed a motion to reopen this case (Doc. 26) which includes his

objections to the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 19) (“R&R”). Consistent with this

Court’s order of September 22, 2014 (Doc. 25), this Court will re-open this case and review

the portions of the R&R to which there is an objection de novo. See United States v. ReynaTapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).

Factual Background

The R&R recounted the factual background of this case as follows:

In disposing of Petitioner’s direct appeal, the Arizona Court of Appeals

summarized the factual background as follows: 

Between approximately midnight and 12:30 a.m. on November

5, 2007, ten images of child pornography were downloaded to

a memory card in Hartman’s cell phone. The next day, Hartman

lost the phone. Three days later, a third party turned the phone

in to the police, indicating it contained child pornography. The

police determined that the phone belonged to Hartman. The

State’s forensic expert found approximately thirty images of

child pornography on the phone in allocated (not deleted) space.

Case 3:13-cv-08190-JAT Document 27 Filed 03/11/15 Page 1 of 6
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 -

The ten images downloaded on November 5 formed the bases

for counts one through ten. The same expert also examined

Hartman’s home computer and found multiple images of child

pornography in unallocated (deleted) space. One image formed

the basis of count eleven.

(Exhibit J, Mem. Dec. at 2.).

R&R at 1-2. 

Petitioner objects to this recitation of the facts by alleging that there are additional

relevant facts that the Arizona Court of Appeals failed to discuss. Doc. 26 at 1-3.

Specifically, Petitioner alleges that the man who found the phone, “contacted the Petitioner

[and] requested money to get his phone back [.] If he did not comply the man stated that he

would find some stuff on his phone that would put him in a lot of trouble.” Id. at 1. 

Procedural History

The R&R recounted the procedural history of this case as follows:

Petitioner was indicted in the Mohave County Superior Court on eleven

counts of Sexual Exploitation of a Minor. (Exhibit B.) On February 16, 2010,

Petitioner proceeded to trial with counsel. (Exhibit C, R.T. 2/16/10.) The jury

convicted on all counts, and found the victims in each image were under the

age of fifteen. Petitioner was sentenced to mitigated, consecutive, ten year

sentences on each count, for an effective sentence of 110 years....

Petitioner filed a direct appeal. Counsel was appointed, and filed an

Opening Brief (Exhibit G) raising claims of: (1) insufficient evidence of

knowing possession as to the image on the computer; (2) insufficient evidence

of knowing possession of the images on the cell phone; (3) double jeopardy

violations; and (4) a grossly disproportionate sentence under the Eighth

Amendment. The Arizona Court of Appeals rejected each of Petitioner’s

claims, and affirmed his convictions and sentences, with one judge specially

concurring on an issue of state sentencing law. (Exhibit J, Mem. Dec.

10/11/11.) ...

Petitioner sought (Exhibit L) and obtained (Exhibit M) an extension of

time to file a post-conviction relief petition. He ultimately filed a pro se

petition (Exhibit N), raising claims of insufficient evidence and a

disproportionate sentence. The PCR court appointed counsel to represent

Petitioner. (Exhibit O, Order 8/1/12.) Counsel reported an inability to find a

claim for relief. (Exhibit N.) Petitioner was granted leave to file a

supplemental petition, but failed to do so. (Exhibit Q, Order 3/7/13.) As of the

filing of Respondents’ Response (Doc. 15), the matter remained pending.

(Exhibit R, Docket; Answer, Doc. 15 at 11.).

R&R at 2-3. Petitioner did not object to this procedural history and the Court hereby accepts

and adopts it. 

Case 3:13-cv-08190-JAT Document 27 Filed 03/11/15 Page 2 of 6
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

1

 This Court will deem this claim exhausted before this state court because it was

exhausted on direct appeal. Neither party has supplemented the record to advise this Court

whether the state post-conviction relief court ever ruled on Petitioner’s post-conviction relief

petition. It is possible that the state court does not deem any petition still pending because

Petitioner never filed a “supplemental petition.” Regardless, however, because this claim

was exhausted on direct appeal, this Court will consider it to be exhausted for purposes of

this habeas petition. See R&R at 6 (“Petitioner raised the insufficient evidence claim in

Ground One [of this habeas petition] in his direct appeal to the Arizona Court of Appeals.

(Exhibit G at 21 et seq.)”).

- 3 -

Petitioner’s Request for Habeas Relief

In his objections, Petitioner objects to the R&R’s recommendation that this Court

deny Petitioner’s claim for habeas relief based on Petitioner’s argument that there was

insufficient evidence to support the conviction. In the R&R, the Magistrate Judge addresses

Petitioner’s insufficiency of the evidence argument at pages 8-10.1

 The Magistrate Judge

determined that the state court’s ruling was not contrary to, nor an unreasonable application

of federal law. Id.; see also Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 71 (2003).

Regarding the governing law, the R&R states: 

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects a

defendant against conviction “except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt

of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged.” In

re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 364 (1970). “The Due Process Clause of the

Fourteenth Amendment denies States the power to deprive the accused of

liberty unless the prosecution proves beyond a reasonable doubt every element

of the charged offense.” Carella v. California, 491 U.S. 263, 265 (1989)

(citation omitted).

Accordingly, in the face of a sufficiency of the evidence claim, the

habeas court must determine whether any rational trier of fact could have

found proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Wright v. West, 505 U.S. 277,

290 (1992); Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 324 (1979). Under Jackson, on

habeas, “the relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the

light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have

found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319. In making this evaluation, the court must not only view the

evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, but must also presume

the trier of fact resolved conflicting evidence in favor of the prosecution.

Wright, 505 U.S. at 295-296; Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319, 326; Taylor v. Stainer, 31 F.3d 907, 908-09 (9th Cir. 1994).

R&R at 8-9. Petitioner does not object to the governing law as recounted in the R&R on an

insufficiency of the evidence claim and the Court hereby accepts and adopts it.

Case 3:13-cv-08190-JAT Document 27 Filed 03/11/15 Page 3 of 6
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 -

However, Petitioner objects to the conclusion of the R&R that the state court correctly

applied this law to the facts of Petitioner’s case. Doc. 26. Specifically, Petitioner objects to

the Arizona Court of Appeals conclusion (which the R&R found was not contrary to nor an

unreasonable application of federal law) that there was sufficient evidence to convict

Petitioner. Petitioner argues, “... the essence of the Petitioner[’s] insufficient evidence

argument was that [the man who found the phone] had place[d] the child pornography on the

phone. This is proof of reasonable doubt.” Id. at 2. In other words, Petitioner alleges that

this “extortion” attempt causes the other evidence of his guilt to be insufficient to sustain his

conviction. Id. at 1-2.

The R&R recounts the facts of Petitioner’s conviction as follows:

The essence of Petitioner’s extortion allegation is that the finder of the

phone had placed the pornographic images on the phone. Substantial evidence

in the record eroded the credibility of that assertion. First, Petitioner did not

report the extortion attempt to police – either as to the return of the phone or

the threat to load it with incriminating evidence – until after he was placed

under suspicion. This was despite being encouraged by his friend to report it

to police. (Exhibit C, R.T. 2/16/10 at 159, et seq.; Exhibit E, R.T. 2/18/10 at

78-80.) Second, Petitioner could not remember the name of the friend he had

enlisted to go with him to meet with the finder, and had to call back to report

a name. (Exhibit C, R.T. 2/16/10 at 160.) Third, Petitioner’s friend’s testimony

was not that the finder had threatened to place incriminating matters on the

phone, but that they were already there. (Exhibit E, R.T. 2/18/10 at 63, 65,

75-76.) This was consistent with the prosecution’s theory of the case. Fourth,

the evidence cited by the Arizona Court of Appeals created a strong inference

that the images had been downloaded by Petitioner, not the finder, e.g. the

existence of child pornography on both the phone and the home computer, that

one of the images was common to both locations, and the images on the phone

were located on sites searched for on the computer. (Exhibit J, Mem. Dec. at

4-5.)

Accordingly, even when considering the evidence of the extortion

allegations, there was ample evidence in the record from which a reasonable

juror could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

R&R at 9-10.

In his objections, Petitioner makes three factual arguments. First, Petitioner argues

that the man who found the phone was not credible because his story of where he found the

phone changed. Doc. 26 at 2. Second, Petitioner admits that he could not remember his

friend’s name, but claims that was because it was really his wife’s friend. Id. And, finally,

Case 3:13-cv-08190-JAT Document 27 Filed 03/11/15 Page 4 of 6
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 -

Petitioner argues that he did report the loss of his phone to the police (Petitioner does not

comment on whether he reported the extortion attempt).

As the case law regarding a sufficiency of the evidence challenge directs, this Court

does not re-evaluate the evidence de novo. Instead, this Court considers the evidence to

determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found guilt beyond a reasonable

doubt, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution and assuming the

jury resolved conflicting evidence in favor of the prosecution. See Wright, 505 U.S. at

295-296; Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319, 326; Taylor, 31 F.3d at 908-09. Under this legal test, this

Court agrees with the R&R that there was ample evidence against Petitioner for a rational

trier of fact to have found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, habeas relief

will be denied.

Certificate of Appealability

In his objections, Petitioner also requests that this Court issue a certificate of

appealability. Doc. 26 at 3. “Where a district court has rejected the constitutional claims on

the merits, the showing required to satisfy § 2253(c) is straightforward: The petitioner must

demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the

constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84 (2000).

In this case, this Court concludes that reasonable jurists would not find this Court’s

assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. Accordingly, the request for a

certificate of appealability is denied.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing,

IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Reopen to allow this Court to consider

Petitioner’s objections to the R&R (part of Doc. 26) is granted. The order and judgment

enter on September 5, 2014 (Docs. 22 and 23) are vacated. The objections contained in Doc.

26 are deemed timely. The Court, having considered those objections, overrules them.

Therefore, for the reasons stated above, the R&R (Doc. 19) is accepted and adopted; the

Case 3:13-cv-08190-JAT Document 27 Filed 03/11/15 Page 5 of 6
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

- 6 -

Petition (Doc. 1) is denied; and the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment of dismissal with

prejudice accordingly.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the request for a certificate of appealability (part

of Doc. 26) is denied.

DATED this 11th day of March, 2015.

Case 3:13-cv-08190-JAT Document 27 Filed 03/11/15 Page 6 of 6